Disposed

Bhola @ Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024CRLA/555/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a criminal appeal filed against a conviction order. Instead of deciding on merits, the court directed the appellant to apply for bail within 30 days, directing the lower court to decide it expeditiously. No coercive action shall be taken during this period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower court to decide bail application expeditiously within 30 days; no coercive action against appellant.

Bhola @ Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16804

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 555 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Bhola @ Satish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sitapur arising out of F.I.R. No. 215 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mishrikh, District Sitapur.

¶8

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that appellant may be permitted to move bail application, before the court concerned and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶9

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

¶10

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against appellant and all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court.

¶11

At this stage only primafacie 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.

¶12

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 ".

¶13

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case 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.

¶14

In the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUO MOTO 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.

¶15

Further, as the Apex Court 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

¶16

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.

¶17

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 appellant, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the appellant 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.

¶18

For a period of 30 days from today or till the appellant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant in the aforesaid case.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Gaurav/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhola @ Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola @ Satish Kumar 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

Ganesh Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sanjay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Jagannath Singh Alias Munnu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jatan Alias Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sarpanch Alias Rafeek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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