Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4321 of 2023

Appellant :- Bhikham Singh And 4 Others

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Krishan Mohan Pandey,Anand Mohan

Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard Shri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the

appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for

the State and perused the record.

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, has been filed by the appellants- Bhikam Singh,

Nawab Singh, Shive Nath Singh, Jaswant Singh and Pappu

Singh with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside the

impugned order dated 28.2.2023 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur whereby the

non bailable warrants has been issued against the appellants in

Special Case No. 1454 of 2022 (State Vs. Bhikham Singh and

others) arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2007, under Sections

323, 452, 504, 506,, 147,148,149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x), of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station Rasoolabad, District

Kanpur Dehat.

Learned counsel for the appellants has made many factual

submissions to demonstrate that the FIR was lodged on false and

concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the appellants and the

Investigating Officer without going deep into the matter in a

cursory manner has submitted the charge sheet, and the court

below has taken cognizance without considering the matter in right

perspective and, therefore, the charge sheet, the order of the

Magistrate, whereby the cognizance has been taken and process is

issued are bad in law and the same be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the learned

counsel for appellants submits that, the arguments of the learned

counsel for appellants is, with regard to the factual aspects of the

case which cannot be appreciated at this stage, as only a

primafacie case is required to be seen at the stage of taking of

cognizance and issuance of process.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the

facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is

made out against appellants. All the submissions made at the bar,

relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be

appreciated by this Court as at this stage only a primafacie case is

to be seen in the light of the law laid down by 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,

Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another

(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State

of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 and lastly State of Gujrat Vs Afroz

Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019.

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,

the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well

as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India

(UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, In Re: To

issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and

deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and

others, MANU/SC/0292/2021 have given various directions to

criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The

ratio of above mentioned decisions in 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 applications should be

decided, expeditiously.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 has

issued various guidelines and provided a scheme with regard to the

cases where the Charge Sheet has been filed without ar