Disposed

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024/458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal appeal seeking quashing of a charge-sheet under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The appellant declined to argue on merits, seeking only permission to apply for bail. The court directed the trial court to hear any bail application swiftly and prohibited coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed; direction to trial court to hear bail application expeditiously if filed within 30 days; no coercive action for 30 days.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13867

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 458 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ajay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Umesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 22.04.2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 205/2016 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section-3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gazipur, District-Lucknow and summoning order dated 31.05.2016 as well as N.B.W. order dated 16.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in S.T. No. 36/2016 (State Versus Manoj Yadav & others) .

¶8

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that appellant 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

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 appellant.

¶11

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 ".

¶12

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of " Amrawati

¶13

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.

¶14

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 nonbailable 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

For a period of 30 days from today or till the appellant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant in the aforesaid case.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.2.2024 Arpan

¶19

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

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Yadav 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

Kishori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Manbhawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajoo Vishwakarma and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Arif @ Sonu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anupam Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others