Disposed

Miohd. Aqeel Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025A482/1884/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash summoning order in a criminal case under Sections 422, 406, 504, 506 IPC; applicant did not press on merits, sought liberty to surrender and apply for bail with expeditious disposal directions. Quashing refused; bail application to be decided within guidelines, no arrest for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days, to be decided expeditiously; no arrest for 30 days or till bail application.

Miohd. Aqeel Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1884 of 2025

Miohd. Aqeel Khan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Salman, Akash Deep Singh, Ana Fatma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of summoning order dated 9.9.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.25, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.31590 of 2024, on the basis of charge sheet no.01/2024 dated 20.4.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.0045/2024, under Sections 422, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Delhupur, District Pratapgarh.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant.

¶14

At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid

¶15

A482 No. 1884 of 2025

¶16

¶17

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 .

¶18

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is hereby refused.

¶19

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the cases 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Further, as the Apex Court in Satender 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

¶22

A482 No. 1884 of 2025

¶23

¶24

necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.

¶25

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 applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the applicant appears and 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.

¶26

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case.

¶27

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶28

October 8, 2025

¶29

GauraV/-

¶30

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

Miohd. Aqeel Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miohd. Aqeel Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Santosh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P Lko.

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

Mitesh Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Miohd. Aqeel Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Varsha Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others