Disposed

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2024A482/10796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of charge sheet and summoning order under Sections 406, 504 IPC. Counsel did not press the application on merit, confining the prayer to permission to surrender and apply for bail with expeditious disposal. Quashing was refused; bail application within 30 days to be decided expeditiously, with no arrest meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days; court below to decide expeditiously; no arrest for 30 days or till bail application.

Ram Babu vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79352

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10796 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Babu

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap,Saad Husain,Shashank Shekhar Singh 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

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 13.07.2021 as well as summoning order dated 16.05.2022 passed in Case No. 1067 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 193 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Achalganj, District Unnao.

¶9

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 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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 applicant.

¶12

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

¶13

(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 .

¶14

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

¶15

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the cases 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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 court below that if the applicant appears and 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 28.11.2024 VKS

¶22

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

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow 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

Ajai Gaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sadanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Daya Shankar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Smt. Shanti Sati Rai vs Mrs. Veena Kumari Meena Prin. Secy. Lko.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Amar Nath and 82 Others vs Mr. P. Guruprasad Addl. Chief Secy. and Another