Disposed

Sarvesh Kumar Mishra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024A482/15200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application to quash chargesheet and summoning order in a 498-A IPC case. Instead of granting quashing due to the applicants' surrender and desire for bail, the Court directed the lower court to consider their bail application expeditively within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashing withdrawn; applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail within two weeks for expeditious consideration by lower court.

Sarvesh Kumar Mishra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190609

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15200 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Mishra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 18.09.2023 submitted in Case Crime No.50 of 2023, under Sections-498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section-3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Siddharth Nagar as well as impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 18.12.2023, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants do not want to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. They wants to surrender before the court and apply for bail. He further submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the court concerned to consider the bail application of the applicants expeditiously within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the applicants surrender before the Court concerned and apply for bail within two weeks from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 . Paras 100 to 100.11 of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) are being quoted as under:

¶10

"100. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain directions. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments:

¶11

100.1. The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.

¶12

100.2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] . Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

¶13

100.3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.

¶14

100.4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate Standing Orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41-A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 7-2-2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448 ] and the Standing Order issued by Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Code.

¶15

100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.

¶16

100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this Court in Siddharth [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423].

¶17

100.7. The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously.

¶18

100.8. The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.

¶19

100.9. While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.

¶20

100.10. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436-A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh [Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 663] , followed by appropriate orders.

¶21

100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.

¶22

For a period of two weeks from today or till appearance of the applicants before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvesh Kumar Mishra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar Mishra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Shitla Prasad Thru. His Attorney Holder Ganesh Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Gaurav Chaturvedi vs State of U.P. and Another

Ziaurrahman vs State of Up and Another

Danish vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 4 Others

Raghuveer Sahai vs State of U.P.

Satyapal Singh Verma vs State of U.P. and Another