Dismissed

Avnish Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 May 2023CRLA/1341/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused a criminal appeal to quash a summoning order under the SC/ST Act. The Court held that disputed facts could not be appreciated at this stage as a prima facie case existed. The appeal was disposed of with a direction to consider bail applications expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order refused. Appeal disposed of with direction to consider bail application expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99401

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1341 of 2023 Appellant :- Avnish Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Yadvendra Singh,Babit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

As per the report of the office as well as of the communication of date 31.03.2023 sent by the Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, the opposite party no.2 has been served sufficiently. However, no one is present on his behalf.

¶6

Heard Shri Yadvendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants 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 Avnish Kumar, Monu @ Vijay and Suresh with the prayer to set-aside the summoning order dated 17.06.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah in W.S.C.C. No. 101 of 2021 (Rajendra Kumar vs. Avnish Kumar and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)Va of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Mirhachi, District Etah.

¶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

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

¶11

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 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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, 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 , Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and in Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941, 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, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.5.2023/Praveen

¶16

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

Avnish Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avnish Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahmpal Goswami and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iliyas @ Mulla and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suman Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ashish @ Chhotu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another