Disposed

Deepak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2025A482/235/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of a charge-sheet and summoning order in a criminal case but withdrew that prayer on merit, seeking instead permission to surrender and apply for bail with expedited handling. Quashing was refused; the court disposed of the application directing bail consideration within law and granting no arrest for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

No arrest for 30 days or till bail application; bail prayer by applicants appearing within 30 days to be considered and decided expeditiously.

Deepak and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2194

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 235 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Deepak And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushalendra K. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been filed with following prayer:-

¶8

"To quash the entire proceedings in the charge-sheet no.01/2021 dated 28.09.2021 in Case Crime No.0454/2021, U/S 147, 452, 323, 308, 504, 506, 427 IPC Act, P.S.Gosaiganj, District- Sultanpur as well as summoning order dated 22.03.2022 in Case Crime No.0454/2021, U/S 147, 452, 323, 308, 504, 506, 427 IPC Act P.S- Gosaiganj, DistrictSultanpur, issued by Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.31, Sultanpur (Annexed as Annexure No.1 & 2)."

¶9

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the applicants submits 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 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.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

¶12

for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants.

¶13

At this stage, only prima facie 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. 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 .

¶14

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is hereby refused. 8. 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Rule 17 of aforesaid Rules that the application for bail in nonbailable 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.

¶17

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 necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.

¶18

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, the application is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the applicants appear before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 13.1.2025 Arpan

¶21

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

Deepak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Akhilendra Gupta and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pawan Kumar and 34 Others vs Mr. P. Guruprasad, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and Another

Lavlesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Deepak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Khubaib Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Omkar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another