Disposed

Man Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2023CRLA/782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act sought quashing of the charge-sheet and cognizance. The court refused the prayer to quash but disposed of the appeal by directing the trial court to consider the bail application expeditiously if the appellant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 782 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Man Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anuj Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjeev Mishra Gana

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Jai Singh Yadav holding brief for Shri Sanjeev Mishra Gana 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 appellant, Man Singh with the prayer to allow this present appeal and quash the impugned summoning order as well as cognizance dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Court No.2, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 1487/2022 (State Vs. Man Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 0337 of 2022, under Sections 323, 452, 540, IPC & 3(1) r, s & 3(2) Va SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur.

¶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 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 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.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that after thorough investigation charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer and the trial court after application of judicial mind has summoned the appellant to face trial and no illegality may be attached.

¶11

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 .

¶12

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.

¶13

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 in 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 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

¶15

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.

¶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 finally 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

It is further provided that the trial court while considering the plea of bail shall pay due regard to the fact that the impugned incident is stated to have sustained and no visible injuries have been caused to the victim by the appellant.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Muk

¶19

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

Man Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Man Singh 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

Smt. Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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