Disposed

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023/6653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charges was dismissed on merit. Court directed Allahabad High Court concerned to dispose of bail application expeditiously within 30 days and restrained coercive action pending such hearing, citing Supreme Court guidelines on trial delays.

What did the court decide?

Court directed lower court to dispose of bail application expeditiously within 30 days; restrained coercive action against applicants.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46137

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6653 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chetan Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2.The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No.166 of 2022, dated 28.04.2022 filed in Case Crime No.0163 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Safipur, District Unnao as well as summoning order dated 23.01.2023 passed in Case No.170 of 2023.

¶8

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to move bail application, before the court concerned and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.

¶10

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants and all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

At this stage only primafacie 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".

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 applicants, the application is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the applicants apply for bail before the Court below within 30 days from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Amit/-

¶19

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

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. 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

Apoorv Mehrotra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Javed Haneef Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Another

Gourab Verma and Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Avinash Chandra Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

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

Mohd. Salman Khan @ Mohd. Salman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another