Disposed

Harinath v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023/6596/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, disposed of an application under S. 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The court directed the trial court to consider bail expeditiously if filed within 30 days and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Disposed; direction to trial court to consider bail expeditiously within 30 days; prohibition on coercive action for 30 days.

Harinath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45502

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6596 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Harinath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.8113 of 2021 arising out of impugned charge-sheet no.345 of 2019 dated 08.12.2019 in Case Crime No.0309 of 2019 under Sections 419, 420 IPC, P.S.- Haidergarh, District- Barabanki including the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.02.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the only witness in the alleged sale deed but on the basis of incorrect fact, charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer with the allegation that sale consideration was taken by the applicant. She further submitted that civil suit for cancellation of sale deed was also filed which was dismissed and in case of other co-accused persons indulgence has been shown by this Court. She drew attention of this Court on Annexure No.11 i.e. the order passed by this Court u/s 482 CrPC No.5774 of 2023 in the case of Asharam and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and another . She also submitted that applicant is about 74 years old and suffering from old age ailments, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that in the case of other co-accused persons indulgence was shown by this Court and main role of the applicant was mentioned. He also submitted that trial is not possible u/s 482 CrPC, therefore, applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that after detailed investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed and evidence collected by Investigating Officer cannot be

¶11

examined u/s 482 CrPC, therefore, no case of indulgence is made out. It is also evident from the order passed by this Court in case of other co-accused persons that there is specific allegations against the applicant.

¶12

At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843".

¶13

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of "Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail application should be decided, expeditiously.

¶14

In the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) No. (S) 1 of 2017 In RE: To issue certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vide its judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 has observed the common deficiencies which occurred in the proceedings of the criminal cases and approved "The Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021" which is the part of the judgment in Chapter V Rule 17 of aforesaid Rules that the application for bail in non-bailable

¶15

cases must ordinarily be disposed off within a period of 3 to 7 days from the date of first hearing. If the application is not disposed off within such period, the Presiding Officer shall furnish reasons thereof in the order itself.

¶16

Further, as the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.

¶17

In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial court concerned that if the applicant applies for bail before the trial court within 30 days from today, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶18

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 Arpan

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harinath v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinath v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Sharma @ Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. and Another

Master X Thru. Its His Father Sri Raghav Ram Mishr Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Uma Shankar Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. U.P. and Another

Shaikh Shad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Mohammad Ateek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another