Disposed

Malti Jaiswal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023/703/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged summons order and bailable warrant under SC/ST Act. High Court found prima facie offence disclosed. Dismissed quashing petition and directed appellants to file regular bail application under Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to file regular bail application within 30 days; trial court must dispose of it strictly under Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

Malti Jaiswal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47688

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 703 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Malti Jaiswal And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramakar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Skan Bajpai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Subhodh Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellants-Malti Jaiswal, Ramesh Kumar, Ram Pratap and Gayatri Devi against the impugned order dated 07.01.2023 and 24.02.2021 passed by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur in Special Session Trial No. 319/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 443/2019, under Section 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (B), 3 (2) (v) A, 3 (1) (B), 3 (1) (s) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi by which the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act passed the summoning order and issued bailable warrant.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no offence against the appellants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶9

Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the appellants. The innocence of the appellants cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the appellants do not deserve any indulgence.

¶10

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the appellants.

¶11

At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.

¶12

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue.

¶13

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the summoning order/bailable warrant in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer made for quashing is refused. The appellants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶14

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 was pleased to observe as under:-

¶15

"3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the Courts below. The guidelines are as under:

¶16

"Categories/Types of Offences

¶17

A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

¶18

B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

¶19

C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail likeNDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

¶20

D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

¶21

Requisite Conditions

¶22

1) Not arrested during investigation.

¶23

2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

¶24

(No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615)

¶25

CATEGORY A

¶26

After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance

¶27

a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

¶28

b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

¶29

c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

¶30

d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

¶31

e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

¶32

CATEGORY B/D

¶33

On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits."

¶34

CATEGORY C

¶35

Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.

¶36

4. Needless to say that the category A deals with both police cases and complaint cases.

¶37

5. The trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications. The caveat which has been put by learned ASG is that where the accused have not cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officers, nor answered summons when the Court feels that judicial custody of the accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with.

¶38

6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr. Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."

¶39

Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case the present appeal moved on behalf of the appellants is finally disposed of in terms that the appellants may move an appropriate regular bail application before the trial court within 30 days from today and if such an application is moved within the period stipulated herein-before, the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same strictly, in accordance with the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

¶40

Order Date :- 20.7.2023

¶41

Arvind

¶42

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

Malti Jaiswal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malti Jaiswal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Ram Raheesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko.

Nitin Alias Jatin Alias Jeetu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Radheshyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Deepak @ Desh Deepak Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Aditya Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy., Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Karthik Agarwal Thru. Father Mr. Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another