Disposed

Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024CRLA/902/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal challenging cognizance/summoning order and charge sheet under IPC and SC/ST Act sections. Counsel did not press the appeal on merits; court disposed of it directing the trial court to decide bail applications expeditiously within 30 days and police not to take coercive action meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Direction to court below to decide bail applications expeditiously if filed within 30 days; police not to take coercive action against appellants during that period.

Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Kumar and 2 Others vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27224

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 902 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Pandey,Akash Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to setting-aside the impugned cognizance order/summoning order dated 17.11.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Case No. 3423 of 2023 (State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Vinod Kumar Yadav and others) as well as charge sheet No. 01 dated 03.06.2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2023, under Sections 504/506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1) Dha and 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow.

¶7

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 appellants and taking note of the same as also the law related to causing interference in criminal proceedings 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 appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that the appellants 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 with law.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

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-appellants, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the appellants 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 fact that the appellants are real brothers, this Court is of the view that if all appellants are taken into custody then in that eventuality it would be very difficult for these appellants to seek the remedy of bail in the light of judgments, referred above, including the judgment passed in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) and accordingly, 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 appellants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, they would not take any coercive action against the appellants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.4.2024 Arun/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home 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

Ram Sundar @ Sundar Lal Vs the Commissioner Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and Ors.

Jumayee Vs D.D.C and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Jyoti Sharma Thru. Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma Vs Presidding Officer Debt. Recovery Tribunal Lko. and Another

Munna Singh Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Shyam Kumar Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar, Faizabad and 2 Others