Ram Abhilakh @ Ram Abhilash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ram Abhilakh @ Ram Abhilash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of finally; summoning order left undisturbed (no interference); notice to respondent No.2 dispensed with; appellants permitted to move a bail application before the learned trial court within three weeks, to be heard and decided in view of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned summoning order dated 13.05.2025 is unsustainable because the complainant's version is not substantiated by the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., so that no prima facie offence is disclosed against the appellants and the summoning amounts to malicious prosecution and abuse of the process of the Court warranting its setting aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A., and the record, there appears no illegality in the order passed by the trial court; therefore, no interference is required in this case.

Ratio / Principle

If the appellants move an application for bail before the learned trial court within three weeks, it shall be heard and decided in view of the law rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; order dated 24.06.2025): Appeal against the summoning order dated 13.05.2025 of the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2024 (Ajay Kumar vs. Raksharam and others), charging offences under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Sections 115(2), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(v)(ka) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Maharajganj Tarai, District Balrampur. Appellants argued the summoning order was not in conformity with the complainant's statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witness statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C., disclosing no prima facie offence and amounting to malicious prosecution and abuse of process; counsel thereafter restricted the plea to a bail direction in terms of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (LL 2022 SC 577). Held: no illegality appears in the summoning order and no interference is required; notice to respondent No. 2 was dispensed with; the appeal was disposed of finally with liberty to the appellants to move for bail before the trial court within three weeks, such application to be heard and decided in view of the law in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36181

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1838 of 2025

Appellant :- Ram Abhilakh @ Ram Abhilash And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notice to respondent No.2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. Under challenge in this appeal is the impugned summoning order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./ S.T. Act), Balrampur in Complaint Case No.48 of 2024 titled Ajay Kumar vs. Raksharam and others, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C./ 115(2), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(v)(ka) S.C./ S.T. Act., Police Station Maharajganj Tarai, District Balrampur.

4. Foremost contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned summoning order is not in conformity with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. His further submission is that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned summoning order has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant's version of the incident, as stated in the complaint, is not substantiated by the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200

Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, he has contended that even prima facie no offence is disclosed against the appellants, despite this fact, they have been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned summoning order passed by the trial court.

5. Learned counsel for appellants has restricted his argument and submits for issuing direction for bail in view of the law rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, LL 2022 SC 577, decided on 11.07.2022 .

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of appellant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for appellants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record, there appears no illegality in the order passed by trial court, therefore, no interference is required in this case. In case appellants move an application for bail before the learned trial court within a period of three weeks from today, it shall be heard and decided in view of law rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil’s case (supra).

8. With the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of finally.

[Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.]

Order Date :- 24.6.2025 cks/-

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench