Disposed

Santram Maurya and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2023CRLA/808/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal seeking to quash the charge sheet and summons in an SC/ST case, ruling that only prima facie cases are reviewed at this stage. However, it disposed of the appeal, directing the trial court to expeditiously decide bail applications if appellants surrender within 30 days, noting no injury was caused in the incident.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash proceedings was refused. The appeal was disposed of directing the trial court to decide bail within 30 days of surrender expeditiously.

Santram Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103040

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 808 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Santram Maurya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sabha Shankar Yadava,Shree Prakash Giri

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Sabha Shankar Yadava, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that some time be granted for the purpose of filing counter affidavit/objections.

¶9

By passing intended order, only a direction is contemplated to the Special Court for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the appellants in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no requirement of filing counter affidavit/objection.

¶10

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed by the appellants- Santram Maurya and Jai Ram Maurya with the prayer to admit and allow the present criminal appeal and set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 20.06.2021 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Jaunpur as well as charge sheet dated 24.02.2021 in S.S.T. No. 93 of 2021 (State vs. Santram Maurya and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 13 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da and 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pawara, District Jaunpur and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶11

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

¶12

perspective and, therefore, the charge sheet, the order of the Special Court, whereby the cognizance has been taken and process is issued are bad in law and the same be quashed.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 the Special Court in taking cognizance of the offences and summoning the appellants to face trial.

¶15

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 Supreme 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 .

¶16

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.

¶17

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India

¶18

(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.

¶19

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 Cout 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.

¶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

It is further provided that the trial Court at the time of disposal of the plea of bail of the appellants shall pay due regard to the fact that no injury has been caused to anyone in the alleged incident on the basis of which the F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.5.2023

¶23

Praveen

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santram Maurya and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram Maurya and Another 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

Mannan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bitti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Shekhar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another