Disposed

Vipin Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/1337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal dismisses on limitation of preference for bail direction rather than merits. Court allows bail hearing within 30 days and restrains police coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move bail application within 30 days, to be considered and decided expeditiously; no coercive action by police for 30 days.

Vipin Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30968

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1337 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Vipin Kumar Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 08.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Sessions Case No. 1815/2023 (State vs. Vipin Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2023, under Sections- 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1) (Da), (Dha) and 3(2) 5-A of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Amethi as well as the impugned charge sheet No. 233/23, dated 11.08.2023 and entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1815 of 2023 pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur.

¶8

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as also taking note of the same in the light of law 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 appellants submit that he does not want to press this appeal on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that appellants 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.

¶9

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

¶10

The Apex Court, after considering the various pronouncements on the issues, in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave

¶11

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 to 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.

¶12

Keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the appellants apply 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.

¶13

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officers concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the appellants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, they would not taken any coercive action against the appellants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Arun/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vipin Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baburam Vs State of U.P. through Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Ors.

Imran @ Patalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Vaishya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Arjun Singh vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit, Lucknow

Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anoop Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another