Partly allowed

Rohit @ Rohit Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2024A482/10747/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed a bail application without merits but refused to quash the charge sheet. Directed lower court to expedite bail hearing if applicants appear within 30 days. Stayed arrest for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Application disposed of with direction to consider bail within 30 days and stay on arrest granted.

Rohit @ Rohit Upadhyay and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84186

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10747 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit @ Rohit Upadhyay And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Pandey,Satyendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

On 05.12.2024, following order was passed.

¶9

"1. Heard.

¶10

The instant application has been filed by the applicants with prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 07.09.2023 as well as summoning order dated 26.09.2023 arising out of case crime no. 149 of 2022 under sections 323, 504, 506, 324 325, 308 of IPC, P.S.- Haliyapur, District- Sultanpur pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.29, Sultanpur.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 16.04.2022, an F.I.R. was lodged by Shivkaran Mishra against husband of complainant of the present case including some others persons with the averment that he received firearm injury in the said incident, and thereafter, he was sent to hospital for his treatment. Later on, on 30.04.2022, husband of the complainant of the present case was taken into custody and sent to jail, but as he was not having any injury, after his physical verification, no injury was mentioned in the jail gatebook and after being released from jail, he obtained fabricated medico legal report related to the incident dated 16.04.2022 and the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶12

List this case on 16.12.2024.

¶13

Superintendent of District Jail, Sultanpur is directed to produce gatebook of date 30.04.2022, in which, taskra of physical inspection of husband of the complainant of the present case, namely, Ravi Shankar Mishra s/o Ram Kripal r/o Pure Jamadar Mishra, Majre Rampur Babuwan, Halipur, Sultanpur is mentioned in relation to Case Crime No. 60 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Haliyapur, District- Sultanpur. The Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case is also directed to appear in person before this Court on the next date of listing and he shall explain that whether any taskra of aforesaid physical inspection has been mentioned in G.D. as well as in case diary or not."

¶14

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh, Deputy Jailer, District Jail, Sultanpur along with Sub-

¶15

Inspector, Rajiv Yadav Investigating Officer of the case in question and Inspector-Praveen Kumar Yadav are present before this Court.

¶16

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 07.09.2023 as well summoning order dated 26.09.2023 passed in F.I.R. No. 149 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 325, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Haliyapur, District Sultanpur.

¶17

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to surrender and move bail application before the court concerned and suitable directions may be issued that the same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants.

¶20

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 .

¶21

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is hereby refused.

¶22

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the cases of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in

¶23

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.

¶24

In the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUO MOTU 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 Officer shall furnish reasons thereof in the order itself.

¶25

Further, as the Apex Court in Satender 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.

¶26

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

¶27

having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, the application is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the applicants appear before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶28

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, the applicants shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case.

¶29

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 VKS

¶30

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit @ Rohit Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit @ Rohit Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. 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

Mishri Lal Vs Ram Naresh Mishra and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. Vs Tausif Mustafa and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Chaturvedi Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Poone and Anr.

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Hari Om Srivastava @ Shani and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko. and Another

Dashrath Maurya @ Dashrath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another