Jeet Kumar Alias Fauji Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home … on 9 June, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Jeet Kumar Alias Fauji Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home … on 9 June, 2025

Author: Rajeev Singh

Bench: Rajeev Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35034
 
Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4793 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Jeet Kumar Alias Fauji Lal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalu Prasad Bhatt,Rashmi Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
 

1. Heard Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant praying as under:-

“To quash the police report (charge-sheet) dated 26-07-2018 filed against the petitioner in case crime no.- 64/2013, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District Sitapur, and NBW order dated 02-05-2025 issued by learned Additional District Judge /Spl. Judge P.C. Act VII, Lucknow in Case Crime 64/2013, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC, Sections 13(1)D & 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District Sitapur and further proceedings of the case vide criminal case no. 353/2017 in re “State versus Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others“.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the evidence provided to the Investigating Officer was not considered in the correct perspective and the charge-sheet was prepared in the most mechanical manner, on which, cognizance order has been passed. She requests for indulgence of this Court.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that the alleged offense is of the year 2013 and charge-sheet was submitted in the month of July, 2018, on which, cognizance was taken by the competent Court on 30.07.2018. He further submits that evidence collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be examined at this stage.

5. 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.

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

7. 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.

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.

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.

8. 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 45 days from today, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

9. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case.

Order Date :- 9.6.2025

Arpan