Dismissed

Ayodhya Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024/9440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without adjudicating merits, as the issues relate to disputed facts. It directed the trial court to decide the applicant's bail application expeditiously if filed within 30 days and prohibited coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against the applicant shall be taken for 30 days; trial court directed to decide bail application expeditiously if filed within 30 days.

Ayodhya Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75342

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9440 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ayodhya Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshmana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash charge-sheet dated 30.03.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.31 of 2024, under Sections 354, 354-B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 9/10 Pocso Act, Police Station Karaundikala, District Sultanpur as well as summoning order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Additional Special Judge (Pocso Act), Court No.12, Sultanpur (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Case No.874 of 2024.

¶8

After arguing the matter at some length, 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 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 applicant and all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶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

¶13

" 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.

¶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 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.

¶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 applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial court concerned that if the applicant 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 applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.11.2024. Rks.

¶19

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

Ayodhya Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayodhya Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

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

Rajesh Kumar Poddar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Manish Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Devi Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Pradip @ Babloo @ Pramod Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Girish Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ( Crime and Investigation Deptt.) Lko and Another

Suresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others