Disposed

Sunil Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024A482/10873/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the prayer to quash the FIR and summoning orders as a prima facie case was made out. Instead, it directed the lower court to dispose of the bail application within three to seven days and stayed arrest for 30 days or until bail application is filed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet denied; stay of arrest for 30 days; direction to lower court to decide bail application within 3-7 days.

Sunil Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81274

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10873 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 No.01/2019 dated 01.04.2019 so far as it relates to the applicants, filed by the Police in Case Crime No. 210 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 333, 336, 353, 427 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Ikauna, District Shrawasti and further the summoning order dated 14.08.2029 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Shrawasti in Criminal Case 2686/2019 along with proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2686/2019 (State Vs. Ravi Pratap Gupta & others) arising from Case Crime No. 210 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 333, 336, 353, 427 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Ikauna, District Shrawasti, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/FTC Shrawasti.

¶9

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.

¶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 applicants.

¶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 (Cr.)

¶13

192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq & Another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir

¶14

& Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 .

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶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 applicants, the application is disposed of with a

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.12.2024

¶23

Arvind

¶24

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

Sunil Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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. Suita @ Jafirun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Subhash Chandra Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Purnesh Kumar Rajneesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Smt. Suman Seth vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Pratibha Verma and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 55 Others