Disposed

Shiv Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2024/243/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court quashed the charge sheet and non-bailable warrant without adjudicating merit, advising the appellant to file a bail application within 30 days. The High Court directed the court concerned to decide the bail application expeditiously, citing Supreme Court guidelines on delays.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet and non-bailable warrant quashed; bail application by appellant within 30 days to be heard expeditiously; no coercive action for 30 days.

Shiv Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8438

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 243 of 2024 Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari,Ram Suphal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash charge-sheet dated 24.08.2017 arising out of Case Crime No.1890 of 2017, under Sections 354, 294, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ikauna, District Shrawasti as well as non-bailable warrant order dated 16.11.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, DistrictShrawasti.

¶7

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this application 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.

¶8

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

¶9

Considering the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against appellants and all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

At this stage only prima-facie case is to be seen in the light of the 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".

¶11

Therefore, in the view of the facts and circumstances, the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet is hereby quashed.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 appellants, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if the appellants apply for bail before the court concerned within 30 days from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

For a period of 30 days from today or till the appellants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be

¶17

taken against the appellants in the aforesaid case. Order Date :- 30.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Mitra Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Jamuna Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ranjeet Kumar Chauhan (Loniya) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bachai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

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