Partly allowed

Rakesh Yadav v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2023CRLA/3117/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought to quash cognizance order and NWW under the SC/ST Act alleging false FIR. High Court refused quashing prayer as only prima facie case existed at that stage but disposed of appeal directing trial court to consider bail expediently within 30 days of surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; appeal disposed of with direction to trial court to consider bail application expeditiously if appellant surrenders within 30 days.

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120754

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3117 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Rakesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shishir Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Nobody is present for opposite party no.2, while the name of Shri Shishir Kumar Tiwari is printed in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no.2 nor any request has been made on his behalf to adjourn the case.

¶7

Heard Shri Rahul Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant, Rakesh Yadav with the prayer to set aside the cognizance order and non-bailable warrant dated 04.08.2020 issued by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etah in SC No. 804 of 2020 (State v. Durvesh Yadav and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah.

¶9

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 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.

¶10

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 primafacie case is required to be seen at the stage of taking of cognizance and issuance of process.

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Hon'ble Apex 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 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

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

¶15

Court in S.K. Antil (supra) has been reiterated in Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Directo r : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 94.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Muk

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Yadav v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Yadav 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

Param Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Arif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naushad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navaratan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanju Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others