Disposed

Ankit Agrahari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2023CRLA/3229/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the appellants' appeal to quash the summoning order in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC. Dismissing the plea to quash, the court directed the trial court to consider bail applications expeditiously if the appellants appear within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order refused; trial court directed to decide bail applications expeditiously if appellants appear within 30 days.

Ankit Agrahari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109903

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3229 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ankit Agrahari And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 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 Ankit Agrahari, Golu alias Ayush Agrahari, Sugreev and Prince Agrahari with the prayer to allow the present appeal and quash the summoning order dated 23.11.2022 passed in the Complaint Case No. 123 of 2021 (Ajay Kuma vs. Ankit Agrahari and others), under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar and to quash the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

¶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

Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the trial Court in

¶11

summoning the appellants for the offence committed by them and, thus, no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶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 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, 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 in MANU/SC/0139/2019, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 and 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.

¶15

In the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the

¶16

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 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 Courts below in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in the cases mentioned herein above.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Praveen

¶18

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

Ankit Agrahari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Agrahari and 3 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. Minakshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Peer Mohammad @ Peeru and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parmatma Yadav @ Parmatma Ram Harakh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Sardar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Madhav Singh Rajput and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another