Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sheel Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200/2025
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7963/2024]
SHEEL KUMAR APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order
dated 10th May, 2024 has rejected the appellant’s prayer for
bail in anticipation of arrest.
3. The appellant figures as an accused in FIR No.625 of
2022 dated 20th October, 2022, registered at Police Station
Kotwarli Chhibramau, District Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. This Court on 30th September, 2024 was informed that
the trial arising out of the aforesaid FIR is not progressing
because of an interim stay of proceedings granted by the
High Court of Allahabad while hearing a petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1 filed by
the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
5. It was noticed in the order recorded on 30th September,
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.01.16
17:18:31 IST
Reason:
1 Cr. PC
1
2024 that the High Court while granting stay perceived the
dispute between the private parties to be entirely civil in
nature, which was given the flavour of a criminal offence.
This Court, accordingly, wished that the said petition under
Section 482 of the Cr. PC may be decided at an early date.
With that in view, a request was made to the High Court by
the aforesaid order to expedite its decision within three
months.
6. We have heard Mr. Ronika Tater, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mr. Vikas Bansal, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.1-State of Uttar Pradesh and
Dr. Anindita Pujari, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2-complainant.
7. We are informed that despite the petition under Section
482 of the Cr. PC having been listed multiple times, the
business of the Court did not permit consideration thereof.
8. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the
charge-sheet under Section 173(2), Cr. PC has been filed, and
that that the appellant is a septuagenarian, we find custodial
interrogation of the appellant unnecessary.
9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is set
aside.
10. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being
arrested, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on
terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
11. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or
2
indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise,
dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case
from disclosing such facts to any police officer or to the
court.
12. Should the investigating officer wish to conduct further
investigation, he shall be at liberty to put the appellant on
notice and if such notice is received, the appellant shall join
the investigation.
13. We clarify that the observations made in this order and
grant of bail to the appellant in anticipation of arrest will not
be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid
terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………..J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
……………………….J.
(MANMOHAN)
New Delhi;
January 15th, 2025
3
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.15 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7963/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-05-2024
in CRMABA No.2840/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
SHEEL KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondents
(With I.A. No.204251/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., I.A. No.
193782/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and I.A. No.130061/2024-
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 15-01-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Ronika Tater, Adv.
Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. Madhumitha Kesavan, Adv.
Ms. Noor Rampal, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Yasharth Kant, AOR
Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Adv.
Mr. Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, Adv.
Mr. Abhas Upmanyu, Adv.
Dr. Anindita Pujari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR
Ms. Bhumika Chouksey, Adv.
Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Radhika Mohapatra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
4
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)
5