Disposed

Kesari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024A482/2174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC filed by petitioners in a cross-FIR case. Directions were issued for filing regular bail within four weeks based on lower sentencing, and terms for single trial were framed by referencing Supreme Court precedents on cross-FIRs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file bail applications within four weeks; trial directed to follow single trial guidelines from cited Supreme Court precedents.

Kesari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:24550

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2174 of 2024 Applicant :- Kesari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shraddha Tripathi,Ram Ji Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Ji Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for State.

¶6

In view of the proposed order notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with.

¶7

By means of this petition the petitioners have prayed following relief :

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside /quash impugned chargesheet dated 15.09.2023, in Case Crime No377 of 2023, Case No-744 of 2024, under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I contained in Annexure No-2, as well as, the impugned Summoning Order dated 16.01.2024, passed by Additional Civil Judge/Junior Division (ACJM) Behraich, as contained in the Annexure No- 1) in the interest of Justice.

¶9

It is further prayed that the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the further Criminal Proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Behraich till the disposal of the instant Petition before this Hon'ble Court.

¶10

Any such Order or direction which deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favor of the Petitioner.

¶11

To allow the Petition in the interest of Justice."

¶12

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. No. 0377 of 2023 u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Visheshar Ganj, District Bahraich. It has been lodged on 11.9.2023 at 3.38 against the present petitioners whereas the aggressors were from the side of opposite party no. 2 who have committed offence in question against the petitioners, therefore, for the same incident the first F.I.R. was lodged from the side of the petitioners bearing F.I.R. No. 0376 of 2023 u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Visheshar Ganj, District Bahraich.

¶13

Sri Trivedi has stated that if both the F.I.Rs. are perused, the fact would emerge that from the side of the opposite party no. 2 the offence has been committed and as a counter-blast the cross-F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners. He has further submitted that in both the F.I.Rs. charge-sheet has been filed and the court concerned took cognizance and issued summons. He has further submitted that the present petitioners are very poor persons and on account of their false implication they are suffering a lot.

¶14

Learned AGA has submitted that the sections in the impugned F.I.R. and charge-sheet are having punishment less than seven years, therefore, the petitioners may be given the benefit of dictum of Apex Court in re: Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922 .

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, prima-facie it appears that firstly the F.I.R. from the side of the petitioners has been lodged, thereafter on the same date the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged under the same sections.

¶16

Since the punishment in the impugned sections is less than seven years, therefore, it is directed that if the petitioners appear before the court concerned within four weeks from today and file bail applications, the same may be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day in the light of the Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶17

If there is any requirement of seeking instructions from the State side the petitioners may be enlarged on interim bail. Further, while enlarging the petitioners on bail learned court concerned may accept only one surety from one petitioner and that surety should be of lessor amount, so that the petitioners could furnish single surety individually. However, the petitioners shall also furnish the personal bond of similar amount.

¶18

Notably, this is a case of cross-F.I.R., therefore, the learned trial court shall abide by the dictum of Apex Court in re: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mishri Lal (2003) 9 SCC 426 as well as Nathi Lal vs. State of U.P. (1990) Supp. SCC 145 while conducting the trial and shall follow the directions and guidelines of aforesaid judgments. In the aforesaid judgments it has been held that in the cases of cross F.I.Rs. the single trial would be conducted clubbing both the charge-sheets and evidences pursuant to both the charge-sheets shall be considered independently.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid terms, petition is disposed of .

¶20

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 20.3.2024/Om

¶22

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kesari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Mithlesh Verma vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mohammad Sageer Alias Mohd. Sagir vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home) Lucknow and Another

Mohar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Deptt. U.P. Govt.Lko. and 2 Others

Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resourses Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Chandu Musalman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Taufiq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another