Disposed

Ramanand Dwivedi @ Satya Prakash Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2023CRLA/1161/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against an order taking cognizance and issuing process, the court refused the prayer to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings. However, the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to consider the appellant's bail application expeditiously if he surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Appeal refused regarding quashing; disposed of with direction to trial court to hear bail application expeditiously if appellant surrenders within 30 days.

Ramanand Dwivedi @ Satya Prakash Dwivedi Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112843

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1161 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ramanand Dwivedi @ Satya Prakash Dwivedi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sukesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Satish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Ramanand Dwivedi @ Satya Prakash Dwivedi with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside the order dated 08.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Ananya Nyayalaya, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Fatehpur in Special Session Trial No. 1155 of 2022 (State vs. Ramanand Dwivedi), arising out of Case crime No. 0112 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Asothar, District Fatehpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has made many factual submissions to demonstrate that the FIR was lodged on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the appellant and the Investigating Officer without going deep into the matter in a cursory manner has submitted the charge-sheet and the Court below has also taken cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and, therefore, the Charge-sheet, the order of the Special Court, whereby the cognizance has been taken and process is issued are bad in law and the same be quashed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the statement of doctor Raghvendra Singh and doctor Abhinav Verma, placed at Page Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 17.05.2023, vehemently submits that these doctors had in so many terms stated that the injuries sustained by the injured were of simple in nature and no harm was caused to the inner organ of the ear and, therefore, the injuries allegedly sustained in the incident were

¶10

simple of nature.

¶11

It is also submitted that there is a huge delay in lodging of the first information report and there was ample time for the informant to have cooked up a false and frivolous case against the appellant.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 vehemently submits that at the stage of summoning that too on the basis of charge, only a primafacie case is required to be seen and meticulous exercise of appreciating the evidence may not be done at that stage, as the same is the subject matter of trial and, thus, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court/Special Court either in taking cognizance of the offence or summoning the appellant to face trial under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and S.C./S.T. Act.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant submits that, the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant is, with regard to the factual aspects of the case which cannot be appreciated at this stage, as only a prima facie case is required to be seen at the stage of taking of cognizance and issuance of process.

¶14

From 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 appellant. 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 923 , Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation , in Kishun Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in MANU/SC/0460/1993 : (1993) 2 SCC 16 , State of W.B. and Anr. v. Mohd. Khalid and Ors . reported in MANU/SC/0154/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 684 , S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Ors . reported in MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492 , M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in MANU/SC/0349/1989 : 1989(26) ACC 280 (SC) , Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in MANU/SC /8098/2006 : 2006 (4) SCC 359 , Nupur Talwar vs C.B.I. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 369 and in State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported

¶15

in MANU/SC/0139/2019 .

¶16

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

¶17

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of 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 in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 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.

¶18

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 has issued various guidelines and provided a scheme with regard to the cases where the Charge Sheet has been filed without arrest of the accused person(s) during investigation and accused person(s) have Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before the Investigating Officer whenever called. Apex Court has also provided special procedure with regard to such cases where the charge sheet has been submitted under offences punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) reiterated in the recent judgement in Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.

¶19

In the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is disposed of with direction to the trial Court that if the appellant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the Court below strictly in accordance with the law referred to herein above.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Praveen

¶21

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

Ramanand Dwivedi @ Satya Prakash Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand Dwivedi @ Satya Prakash Dwivedi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Dixit @ Ashwani Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parshuram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Md. Lateef and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobh Nath Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another