Disposed

Anand Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024/923/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal seeking quashing of a summoning order and charge sheet; counsel did not press the appeal on merits, confining prayer to liberty to seek bail. Court disposed of the appeal directing expeditious bail consideration and no coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to court below to consider and decide bail application expeditiously if filed within 30 days; no coercive action against appellant for 30 days or till bail application, whichever earlier.

Anand Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin.Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23518

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 923 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Anand Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Its Prin.Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhoopal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.3.2012 including charge sheet dated 5.12.2011, in the interest of justice.

¶7

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 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.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.

¶9

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against appellant and all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court.

¶10

At this stage only primafacie 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 ".

¶11

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

¶12

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 non-bailable 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 OfÏcer shall furnish reasons thereof in the order itself.

¶13

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.

¶14

In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of

¶15

the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the appellant applies for bail before the Court below within 30 days from today, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.3.2024 Gaurav/-

¶18

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

Anand Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Its 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

Jagat Singh Bisht vs Rajiv Kumar Srivastav, Addl. General Manager R.B. I.T.I. Ltd., Rae Bareli

Dr. Mohammad Shadab Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Lko. and 5 Others

Rahul Dwivedi @ R.D. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ganesh Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Virendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Aman Dixit @ Golu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko