Jitendra Kumar Gupta @ Jitendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11796 of 2024 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Gupta @ Jitendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the non-bailable warrant dated 09.12.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 7793 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 351 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 66-D I.T. Act, P.S. Patti, District Pratapgarh.

¶3After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to move bail application before the court concerned and suitable directions may be issued that the same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.

¶5Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. 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.

¶6A 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 OfÏcer 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.

¶7In 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.

¶8For 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.

¶9It is also open to the applicant to move application for further investigation, if he is aggrieved with the same and, in case, any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.12.2024 VKS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench