Partly allowed

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024/3157/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the application to quash criminal proceedings, finding prima facie offence. It granted conditional leave to apply to the trial court for a mandatory direction to examine and decide a bail application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; however, application for direction to consider bail expeditiously was granted conditionally if applicant appears within four weeks.

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28755

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3157 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Bajpai,Anuja Bajpai,Suparna Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Ms.Suparna Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 passed by learned Upper Civil Judge (Awar Khand) / Judicial Magistrate, Court No.36, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.444/2023, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as bailable warrant dated 30.01.2024, under Sections 323, 506, 392 I.P.C., Police Station Jamo, District Amethi.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

After some argument, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer to the extent that a positive direction may be given to learned trial court that if a bail application is moved before it by the applicant, the same may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law in light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 as the punishment in the above case is less than seven years.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the applicant and submit that a positive direction may be issued to the learned trial court to consider and decide the bail application, if moved before it by the applicant, expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.

¶10

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at

¶11

the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.

¶12

At the stage of issuing process the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283 .

¶13

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

¶14

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of summoning order/charge sheet or criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of summoning order/charge sheet/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶15

In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, if the applicant appears and surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail within four weeks' from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the trial court in accordance with law after hearing the Public

¶16

Prosecutor in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) .

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 Saurabh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes 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

Niyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Chandra ( in Charge Sheet Dinesh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Other

Madhu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Akanksha Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ram Sunder @ Ram Sunder Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others