Disposed

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024/335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without adjudicating merits, directing that if the applicant files a bail application after surrender, it shall be heard expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with direction to consider bail application expeditiously if filed.

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4286

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 335 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan,Faiqa Khan,Gyanendra Pratap Singh Chuahan,Uday Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad holding brief of Sri Shishir Pradhan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rshikesh Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 12.07.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 2194/2021 (Jamuna Prasad v. Santosh Kumar Singh), under Sections 323, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, pertaining to Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow .

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations made against the applicant and has only to examine whether on the basis of the allegations made and material collected during investigation, the offences are made out against the applicant or not.

¶10

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh , 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

¶11

Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel

¶12

for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicant may be permitted to surrender and move an application, before the court concerned seeking bail and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by observing that in case the applicant appears and files an application for his release on bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. , (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.1.2024 Pradeep/-

¶15

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

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow 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

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Balendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Aditya Singh @ Sukh Nidhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ateek Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Arhaan Ahmed (Minor) Thru. Her Mother Natural Guardian Mrs. Sheeeba Siddiqui Vs Prin. Judge Sultanpur Court No. 02 Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Smt. Indira Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others