Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J
Veer Singh And 2 Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Application U/S 482 No. 39358 of 2024, APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32879 of 2024
Decided on : 21-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bhaskar Bhadra
For the Respondent: G.A.

The court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory bail provisions and timely disposal of bail applications, reinforcing established legal principles.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41, 41-A, 88, 170, 204, 209, 436-A, 440 - Quashing of charge sheet and criminal proceedings - Applicants sought quashing of charge sheet and proceedings but later opted to surrender and apply for bail - The court directed that bail application be considered expeditiously. (Paras 3, 4, 5)

(B) Bail - The court emphasized the necessity for compliance with statutory provisions regarding bail and the timely disposal of bail applications, referencing the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The applicants filed applications for quashing the charge sheet and proceedings in a criminal case involving allegations under Sections 494 and 506 IPC, but later decided to surrender and seek bail instead.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that upon surrendering and applying for bail, the applications must be considered promptly by the lower court, following the principles established in relevant case law.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the applicants' right to quash proceedings versus their intent to seek bail, and the obligation of the court to expedite the bail process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for bail and the need for expeditious consideration of bail applications, as articulated in previous judgments.

Result: Applications disposed of with directions for bail consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mayank Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The above applications have been filed with following prayers:-

Application U/S 482 No.39358 of 2024

The present application has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 31.01.2023, Cognizance Order dated 18.06.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4963 of 2024 (State Vs. Pooran and others), arising out of Case Crime No.12 of 2023, under Sections 494, 506 IPC, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

Application U/S 482 No.32879 of 2024

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants do not want to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. Applicants want to surrender before the court below and apply for bail. He further submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the court concerned to consider the bail application of the applicants expeditiously within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the applicants surrender before the Court concerned and apply for bail within three weeks from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51

5. For reference paras 100 to 100.11 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) are being quoted as under:

"100. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain directions. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments:

100.1. The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.

100.2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449]. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

100.3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.

100.4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate Standing Orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41-A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 7-2-2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448] and the Standing Order issued by Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Code.

100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.

100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this Court in Siddharth [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document