Disposed

Ajeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2023CRLA/4318/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act. Quashing of conviction proceedings was refused as no prima facie case was negatived at this stage. However, the appellant was directed to seek bail expeditiously in the trial court within 30 days, dispensing with the notice to the opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused. Appeal disposed with direction to trial court to decide bail expeditiously if appellant surrenders within 30 days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4318 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Ajeet Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pusp Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that the appellant is pressing to instant the appeal only for a direction to the trial court for expeditious disposal of his bail application in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶6

Learned AGA would have no objection to the request made on behalf of the appellant.

¶7

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the issuance of the notice to the opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with as any direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the appellant would not be against the interest of opposite party no.2.

¶8

Heard Shri Pusp Raj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Ajeet with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and quash the summoning/cognizance order dated 17.2.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Banda in Special Criminal Case No. 37 of 2018 (State Vs. Ajeet), arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2017, under Sections- 332, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kamasin, District -Banda.

¶10

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 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 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.

¶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 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 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 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.

¶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 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

¶16

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.

¶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 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Akbar

¶19

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

Ajeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet 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

Prem Babu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Balkeshwar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lalsa Rajbhar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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