Disposed

Ram Amar Maurya and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2023CRLA/4685/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, the High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and proceedings, holding disputed facts could not be appreciated. The court directed the trial court to consider bail expeditiously for the young student appellants if they surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

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

Ram Amar Maurya and 4 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108083

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4685 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Amar Maurya And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gauri Shankar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Gauri Shankar Yadav, 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) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants, Ram Amar Maurya, Abhishek Maurya, Srimati Devi, Priya Maurya and Sunita Devi with the prayer to allow the instant Criminal Appeal and quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 491 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Amar and others) as well as Charge sheet dated 24.12.2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 0026 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 (Kha), 427 IPC and Section 3(1) Ba of SC/ST Act,Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has made many 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 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.

¶9

Learned cousnel for the appellants has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in order to show that the allegation of outraging the modesty has been levelled in general without assigning specific role to any of the accused.

¶10

It is also submitted that appellant no.4- Ms. Priya Maurya is a

¶11

young girl and student of Class-XII and appellant no.2Abhishek Maurya is a student of M.A. Previous Year and they were not even involved in any dispute and their names have been unnecessarily dragged into this case.

¶12

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.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the order intended to be passed, the service of notice on opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶14

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 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 .

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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 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.

¶19

Having regard to the submissions made by learned cousnel for the appellants with regard to the fact that appellant no.4 is a young girl and is a student of Class-XII while appellant no.2Abhishek Maurya is also a student of M.A. Previous Year, it is directed that the trial court shall pay due regard tot his submission of learned cousnel for the appellant at the stage of considering their bail plea and would also consider that general allegation of outraging the modesty of the victim has been levelled in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶20

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.

¶21

If the opposite party no.2 feels aggrieved by this order, she/he may approach this Court by moving an appropriate application.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Muk

¶23

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

Ram Amar Maurya and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Amar Maurya and 4 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

Indrasan Rai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayank Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munesh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramdas and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Kumar Gaur @ Umesh Vs State of U.P. and Another