Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024/843/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC as prima facie offence was disclosed. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the bail application if moved within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused; bail application to be considered expeditiously if moved within 4 weeks.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21839

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 843 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Veeresh Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sunendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, namely, Veeresh Kumar Shukla with a prayer to quash the entire Criminal Proceedings and the impugned orders dated 23.09.2022 and 16.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge SC & ST Act, Sitapur in Special Trial No.336 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.0231/2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 406 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) Da and Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Maholi, District-Sitapur.

¶8

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

¶9

After some argument, learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant, 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.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the appellant 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 appellant, expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.

¶11

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the appellant.

¶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.

¶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 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 entire criminal proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The appellant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶15

In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant, if the appellant 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 Prosecutor in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) .

¶16

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

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Piyush/-

¶20

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

Veeresh 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?

Veeresh 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

Smt. Rekha Yadava Vs Raj Kumar Yadava and 2 Ors.

Guddoo @ Kasim and Another Vs State of U.P.

Genda Vs State of U.P.

Sahdeo Vs State of U.P.

Veeresh Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Prakash and Another. Vs State of U.P.