Disposed

Santosh Baba @ Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 May 2023CRLA/4200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summoning order in a criminal case involving SC/ST atrocities, holding that factual disputes could not be resolved at the stage of prima facie case. Instead, it directed the trial court to consider the appellant's bail application expeditiously within 30 days if he surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash proceedings; directed trial court to decide bail application expeditiously if appellant surrenders within 30 days.

Santosh Baba @ Santosh Kumar Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118139

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4200 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Santosh Baba @ Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Lakshmi Kant Trigunait, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Santosh Baba @ Santosh Kumar with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside summoning order dated 6.2.2023 passed in S.S.T. No. 33/2023 in Criminal Case No. 239 of 2022 (State vs. Santosh Baba) arising out of Case Crime No. 239 of 2022, under Sections 354-B, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(W) and 3(2)(va) and 3(1) (Da) of SC/ST Act, police station Fafund, disstrict Auraiya pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya.

¶8

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 also taken cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and, therefore, the Charge-sheet, the order of the Special Court, 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 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 prima facie case is required to be seen at the stage of taking of cognizance and issuance of process.

¶10

Having regard to the nature of order intended to be passed, the service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is dispensed with.

¶11

From 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 Supreme 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, 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 .

¶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

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of 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 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.

¶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

¶15

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 Court 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.

¶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 :- 26.5.2023

¶18

Sumaira

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Baba @ Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Baba @ Santosh Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

Kallu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Alias Nand Gopal Bairagi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bahor Vs State of U.P.

Satish Chandra Dwivedi @ Satish Dwivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Maurya Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department and another