Partly allowed

Indrasan Rai and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2023CRLA/10283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged the Summoning Order in a case under sections 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC and SC/ST Act allegeding fake cases. The High Court refused to quash the order, holding that only a prima facie case needs to be seen. However, directing the trial court to consider the period and family array, the appeal was disposed of with a direction for expedient bail consideration within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order refusing quashment refused; appeal disposed of with direction to trial court to consider bail application expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days.

Indrasan Rai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105617

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10283 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Indrasan Rai And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Umesh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Umesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants namely Indrasan Rai, Ripunjai Rai and Sarita Rai with the prayer to stay the further proceeding of Complaint Case No. 211 of 2020 (Deenanath Dharikar vs. Indrasan Rai and others), under Sections 427, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, SC/ST Act, Police Station Kandharapur, District Azamgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has advanced many factual submissions to demonstrate that the complaint has been filed on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the appellants and the Court below has taken the cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and issued the process against the appellants in a cursory way, therefore, the summoning order passed by the Special Court, whereby the process is issued against the appellants is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of learned counsel for appellants submits that, the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants is, with regard to the factual aspects of the case which cannot be appreciated by this Court.

¶10

Shri Umesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the trial Court in summoning the appellants for the offence committed by them and, thus, no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶11

From the perusal of the 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 appellants. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be appreciated by this Court as at this stage only a primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 923 , in Kishun Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0460/1993 : (1993) 2 SCC 16 , State of W.B. and Anr. v. Mohd. Khalid and Ors . MANU/SC/0154/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 684 , in S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Ors . MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492 , in M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0349/1989 : 1989(26) ACC 280 (SC) , in Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others MANU/SC/8098/2006 : 2006 (4) SCC 359 , in the case of Nupur Talwar vs C.B.I. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 369, State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019 , Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation , AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1947, Smt. Nagawwa v/s Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & others , AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 1998 S.C. 128, M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others ].

¶12

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶13

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , MANU/SC/0292/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and in Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Directo r : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 94 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 applications should be decided, expeditiously.

¶14

In the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts, evidence and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for the appellants,

¶15

the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the appellants appear and surrender before the Court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the Courts below in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in the cases mentioned herein above.

¶16

It is further provided that at the time of considering the plea of bail of the appellants, the Special Court shall pay due regard to the fact that all the members of a family has been arrayed as accused persons in the instant case.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Praveen

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indrasan Rai and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrasan Rai and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shiv Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Intzar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayank Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munesh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Ritesh Ranjan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others