Disposed

Vikram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2023CRLA/5238/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in an appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act refused to quash the charge-sheet and summons order, finding a prima facie case made out. However, it disposed of the appeal by ordering the trial court to consider bail application expeditiously if the appellant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Appeal was disposed of with direction to trial court to consider bail application expeditiously if appellant surrenders within 30 days.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108189

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5238 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Vikram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Satya Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Singh Sengar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 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- Vikram with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside the order dated 24.3.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 8 of 2022 (State Vs. Vikram) arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Sections-, 365, 337, 323, 506, 509 IPC and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Madhogarh, District Jaluan.

¶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 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 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

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that no

¶11

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 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 with up to seven years of imprisonment. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra)

¶16

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 :- 17.5.2023 Akbar

¶19

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

Vikram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram 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

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

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

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