Disposed

Dayaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jun 2024/1327/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a Section 409 IPC case. Counsel did not press the application on merits and sought a direction that a regular bail application be decided expeditiously. The court disposed of the application with such a direction.

What did the court decide?

If applicant applies for bail within 30 days, court below to consider and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.

Dayaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43039

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1327 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dayaram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Neelam Verma,Puneet Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 18588/2019, Crime No. 900/2014 Section 409 IPC, Police Station - Ghazipur, District - Lucknow.

¶9

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant and taking note of the same above law related to causing interference in criminal proceedings laid down by Hon'ble 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 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 , on being confronted, after arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicant may be permitted to move bail application, before the court concerned and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.

¶11

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of "Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 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 application should be decided, expeditiously.

¶12

In the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) No. (S) 1 of 2017 In RE: To issue certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vide its judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 has observed the common deficiencies which occurred in the proceedings of the criminal cases and approved "The Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021" which is the part of the judgment in Chapter V Rule 17 of aforesaid Rules that the application for bail in non-bailable cases must ordinarily be disposed off within a period of 3 to 7 days from the date of first hearing. If the application is not disposed off within such period, the Presiding Officer shall furnish reasons thereof in the order itself.

¶13

Further, as the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.

¶14

In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant-applicant, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court below within 30 days from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.6.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dayaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Niwas and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sanjay Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Home Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Awanish Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Karan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Aamir Hussain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Scy. Home Lucknow

Smt. Veshi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept Lko.