Disposed

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

Allahabad HC3 May 2023CRLA/3106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge-sheet and cognizance order in an SC/ST atrocity case, holding that only a prima facie case needed to be seen. The appeal was disposed of directing the trial court to expeditiously decide bail if appellants surrender within 30 days, noting the disability of one appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with direction to trial court to decide bail expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days; quashing prayer refused. Due regard to be given to disabled accused's bail plea.

Chandi @ Chandra Sekhar and Antoher Vs State of U.P. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3106 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Chandi @ Chandra Sekhar And Antoher Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Bahadur Shivhare Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

As per the communication sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur O.P. No.2 has been sufficiently served, however, no one is present on his behalf

¶6

Heard Shri Sandeep Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, 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- Chandi @ Chandra Shekhar and Ajendra with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.2.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Hamirpur in Sessions Case No. 637 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 203 of 2020, under Sections 452,323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. patently false and absurd and could not be believed so much so the investigation is also biased as the main accused of the alleged incident namely Keshav has not been charge-sheeted and on the same set of material/evidence, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the instant appellants. It is also submitted that one of the appellant namely Ajendra, appellant no.2 is 100% disabled persons by any stretch of imagination may not commit the offence alleged against him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has made many other 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

¶10

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.

¶11

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 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.

¶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

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the appellant no.2 Ajendra to the tune that he is 100% disable in this regard the attention of this court has also been drawn on page no.55 wherein the certificate issued by the Board constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur is placed.

¶19

Thus having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, it is provided that while considering plea of the bail of the appellants, the trial court shall pay due regard to the fact that the appellant no.2 Ajendra is shown to be 100% disable in the certificate issued in this regard by Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Akbar

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandi @ Chandra Sekhar and Antoher 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

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

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