Disposed¶10

Saurabh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2025CRLA/1133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Appeal 1133/2025, Alok Mathur J., 18.04.2025: quashing of discharge-dismissal order (Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow; S.T. 2004/2023; Case Crime 150/2022; P.S. Qaiserbagh; IPC Ss. 279, 337, 338, 504, 506; ACt 1989 s. 3(1)(Da)(Dha)) refused; appellant granted liberty to file bail application within two weeks, to be decided expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (SLP(C) 5191/2021); appeal disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to appear before the trial court within two weeks and apply for bail, to be decided expeditiously in view of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI; prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding refused. ¶10

Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned discharge dismissal order dated 06.07.2024 and discharge of the appellant from all proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 150/2022 in S.T. NO. 2004/2023 should succeed. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding is refused.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

If the appellant appears before the trial court within two weeks and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:21935; Court No. 12, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1133 of 2025; Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.; decided 18.4.2025. Appellant Saurabh Kumar appealed against the State of U.P. seeking (i) setting aside of the impugned discharge-dismissal order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in S.T. No. 2004/2023 (Case Crime No. 150/2022, P.S. Qaiserbagh, District Lucknow), whereby his application for discharge — filed in proceedings registered under Ss. 279, 337, 338, 504, 506 I.P.C. and s. 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of the ACt, 1989 — had been dismissed in the absence of his counsel, and (ii) discharge from all proceedings arising out of that case crime. After arguing at length, counsel for the appellant submitted that the grievance would be redressed if liberty were granted to file a bail application, to be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 5191 of 2021), to which the learned A.G.A. raised no objection. The Court refused the prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding, but provided that if the appellant appeared before the trial court within two weeks and applied for bail, the application would be decided expeditiously in view of Satender Kumar Antil. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21935

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1133 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Saurabh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sachidanand Mishra,Anant Kumar Singh Sengar,Danish Ahsan,Kshitij Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for setting aside the impugned discharge dismissal order dated 06.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in S.T. No. 2004/2023, Case Crime No. 150/2022, whereby the application for discharge was dismissed in the absence of the counsel for the appellant and also to discharge the appellant from all proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 150/2022 in S.T. NO. 2004/2023, U/S 279, 337, 338, 504, 506 and I.P.C. & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of the ACt, 1989, P.s. Qaiserbagh, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for appellant, after arguing at some length submits that grievance of the appellant shall be redressed in case liberty is granted to the appellant to file a bail application which may be decided in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in "Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021" to which learned A.G.A. has no objection.

¶9

In view of the above, prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding is refused. So far as other prayer is concerned, it is provided that in case the appellant appears before the trial court within two weeks from today and applies for bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra).

¶10

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶11

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 18.4.2025/Ravi/

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saurabh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naseem Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Satish Chandra Vs Pawan Kumar and Another

Deeleep Chandra Vs Pawan Kumar and Another

Kalveer @ Brahmyuman and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satish Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others