Application filed to quash criminal proceedings. The High Court refused to quash, stating disputed facts are for trial court. It directed lower courts to hear bail application expeditiously if made, citing Supreme Court guidelines.
Prayer for quash refused; direction that bail application to be heard expeditiously if made.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40202 of 2022
Applicant :- Amar Jeet Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Navneet Lal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Mr. Navneet Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the Case No.9295 of 2022 and charge sheet no.01 of 2022 dated 5.3.2022 and cognizance order dated 26.09.2022 arising out of Case Crime No.142 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 504, 506, 341, 427 IPC, Police Station Prsamalik, District Maharajganj.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass the applicant, in fact, no such incident has taken place. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in 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 and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the above mentioned case is hereby refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicant approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrender before the court concerned and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 13.2.2023
Ajeet
Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 504, 506, 341, 427 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the application for bail should be heard expeditiously by the lower courts.
Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies provided in Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationApplied¶10
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922. · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amar Jeet Singh
State Of U.P.
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Ajeet Kumar Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
