Ramesh Chandra Verma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2025CRLA/2604/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against summoning orders under IPC and SC/ST Act. Appeal not pressed on merits. Court refuses to quash proceedings, holds prima facie case exists. Directs trial court to decide bail application expeditiously if filed within 30 days. No coercive action for 30 days. Cites Supreme Court guidelines on expeditious bail disposal (Suo Moto Writ 2017, Satendra Kumar Antil) and Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial court to consider and decide bail application expeditiously if filed within 30 days; no coercive action against appellants for 30 days or until bail application filed, whichever is earlier. ¶¶21

Ramesh Chandra Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning orders dated 01.03.2024, 13.11.2024 and 24.04.2025 and the entire proceedings in Session Case No. 08 of 2023 should be quashed. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

Bail applications must be decided expeditiously in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held by multiple Supreme Court and High Court decisions.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Delay condonation application is allowed as the cause shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

The court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact at this stage and it cannot be said that no offence is made out against appellants.ratio¶¶15
At the stage of quashing proceedings, only prima facie case is to be seen in light of Supreme Court precedents.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) disposed of a criminal appeal challenging summoning orders and proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act. The appellants did not press the appeal on merits but sought permission to move a bail application before the trial court. The court held that at the stage of quashing proceedings, only a prima facie case is to be examined, and it could not be said that no offence was made out. Citing Supreme Court precedents (R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical, Parabatbhai Ahir) and High Court rulings (Amrawati, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh, Hussain), the court emphasized that bail applications must be decided expeditiously under Article 21. Referring to the Supreme Court's Suo Moto Writ (Crl) No. 1 of 2017 (Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021, Chapter V Rule 17), which mandates disposal of bail applications in non-bailable cases within 3-7 days, and Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines, the court disposed of the appeal with directions: (1) if appellants file bail application within 30 days, the trial court shall consider and decide it expeditiously; (2) no coercive action against appellants for 30 days or until bail application is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49592

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2604 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Verma And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nisha Srivastava,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Order on Application No. Nil of 2025

¶7

Learned counsel for appellants has filed delay condonation application supported with an affidavit with the prayer to condone the delay filing the present appeal.

¶8

Perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application. Cause shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient.

¶9

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed.

¶10

Order on Appeal

¶11

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

¶12

The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning orders dated 01.03.2024; 13.11.2024 and 24.04.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki as well as entire proceedings of Session Case No.08 of 2023 (Krishnawati Vs. Ramesh Chandra Verma and Others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1)(r) SC/ST Act, police station Kothi, district Barabanki.

¶13

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 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 to law.

¶14

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

¶15

Considering the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against appellants and all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this

¶16

Court at this stage.

¶17

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" .

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 appellants, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial court concerned that if the appellants apply for

¶22

bail before the trial court within 30 days from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶23

For a period of 30 days from today or till the appellants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants in the aforesaid case.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.8.2025. Rks.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Chandra Verma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Verma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) 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

Ramji Singh Pno- 852090046 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addt. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Manmeet Singh vs Allahabad High Court Thru. Registrar General and 2 Others

Smt. Kalawati Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Sohan @ Sohan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 4 Others