Disposed

Satyendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Unable to prove innocence on merit, the applicant requested leave to surrender and seek expedited bail. The court disposed of the petition allowing an application to be filed for bail to be heard expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Leave permitted to file bail application to be heard expeditiously if applicant appears.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4545

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 360 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet No. 79 of 2022 dated 21.03.2022, summoning order dated 11.04.2023 as well as the proceedings of Crl. Case No. 4009/2022 (State of U.P. v. Satyendra Kumar Shukla), arising out of Case Crime No. 133/2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC relating to Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao.

¶9

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

¶10

4. 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.

¶11

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh , 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers

¶12

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".

¶13

6. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel 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.

¶14

7. 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 Pradeep/-

¶16

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

Satyendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, 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

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

Abhishek Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others