Disposed

Shahjad Khan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024A482/6328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC. Since the applicant withdrew the merit prayer in exchange for a liberty to move a bail application that be heard expeditiously, and noting Apex Court guidelines no specific directions were issued beyond reminding the trial court to decide bail within 30 days and prohibiting police coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; liberty granted to move bail before Trial Court to be decided within 30 days; police restrained from coercive action.

Shahjad Khan and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48817

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6328 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shahjad Khan And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash/set aside the summoning and cognizance order dated 29.04.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 1, Bahraich in Criminal Case No. 8848 of 2024, Police Station - Risiya, District - Bahraich whereby the applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections- 452, 323, 504, 506, 147 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 501 of 2023.

¶8

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as also taking note of the same in the light of 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 , on being confronted, after arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the applicants submit 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 move bail application, before the court concerned and suitable directions may be issued that

¶9

same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶10

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

¶11

The Apex Court, after considering the various pronouncements on the issues, in Satendra 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 to 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.

¶12

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 liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicants apply for bail before the Court below within 30 days from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officers concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, they would not taken any coercive action against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.7.2024

¶16

Mohit Singh/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shahjad Khan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahjad Khan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Mohd. Akhtar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home and Another

Pooja Sharma and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nitin Tiwari and Thru. Father Satish Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Shafiya Begam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Vidhan Sabha Marg Lko.

Mohammad Sufeeyan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Divyansh Vikram Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others