Disposed

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

Allahabad HC25 May 2023CRLA/4983/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against the charge sheet and cognizance order in a SC/ST Act case was dismissed as factual disputes could not be appreciated at this stage. The court directed the trial court to decide bail expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days following Supreme Court guidelines on personal liberty.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; trial court directed to expedite bail application consideration if appellants surrender within 30 days.

Kallu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116840

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4983 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Kallu And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Nishad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Lal Chandra Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party 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) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants , Kallu, Sagir, Chunna, Subratan and Najra with the prayer to allow the Criminal Appeal and set aside the charge sheet dated 08.08.2021 and the cognizance/ summoning order dated 05.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda in Special Case No. 169 of 2021 State Vs. Kallu and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bisanda, District Banda.

¶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 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

¶10

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

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the Investigating Officer in submitting the charge sheet or by special court in taking cognizance of the offences and summoning the appellants to face trial.

¶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 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 .

¶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 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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶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 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Muk

¶19

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Alias Pawan Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajdeep @ Shippu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

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

Amarjeet Kaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another