Disposed

Om Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2023CRLA/2954/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act against a summoning order, the appellate court refused to quash the proceedings without adjudicating disputed facts. However, considering the accused had not been arrested, it directed the trial court to dispose of their bail application expeditiously if they surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; appellants directed to surrender within 30 days so bail application can be considered and decided expeditiously.

Om Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2954 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Om Prakash And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Hari Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed by the appellants- Om Prakash, with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.9.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Bhadohi at Gyanpur in S.T. No. 125 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Omprakash & Ors) arising out of Case Crime No. 313 of 2020 under Section 147,323,504, 506 427 IPC and Section 3 (1) (da) and 3 (1) (Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this court, towards the impugned order dated 30.9.2022, vehemently submits that the trial court has committed manifest illegality in summoning the appellants to face trial by passing the impugned order as it was evident on the record that the opposite party no.2 is highly inminal towards the appellants and the instant case is a glaring example of false implication and malicious prosecution.

¶8

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

¶9

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants submits that, the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants is, with regard to the factual aspects of the

¶10

case which cannot be appreciated at this stage, as only a primafacie case is required to be seen at the stage of taking of cognizance and issuance of process.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the order intended to be passed, the service of notice on opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶12

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 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 and lastly State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019.

¶13

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.

¶14

There is no dispute pertaining to the fact that the alleged offences wherein in the charge-sheet filed for punishable offence up to seven years imprisonment and the the appellants have not been arrested by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation by which, inference may be drawn that they have cooperated in the investigation.

¶15

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions in 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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 Cout 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.

¶18

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 appellants, the appeal is disposed of with 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 Court below strictly in accordance with the law referred to herein above.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Akbar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navrati Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhikham Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Chandi @ Chandra Sekhar and Antoher Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another