# Anoop Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 345
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 483 No. 17 of 2022
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta, Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anoop-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48328
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

G.A.

A. Practice & Procedure - The Court directed
that all Judicial Officers in State of U.P. shall
strictly and literally comply with the circulars
issued by this Court. (Para 11)
Application Disposed of. (E-10)

## Text

4 All. Anoop Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345

22. Since this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has already been
dismissed, no further orders are required to
be passed in the Intervention Application
filed by Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate on
behalf of one Laxmi Prasad Upadhyay, who
happens to be the father of the applicant
and is present in the Court.

23. Mr. J.K. Upadhyay, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Rahul Mishra,
Advocate appearing for Laxmi Prasad
Uapdhyay, who filed the intervention
application are present in the Chambers of
the Court

24. Mr. Shabir, Sub-Inspector, Mr.
Anvar Ahmad, Head Constable and Mr.
Ram Kumar, Constable of Police Lines,
Commissionerate, Varanasi are directed to
take the applicant Arvind Upadhyay to
Central Jain, Varanasi in the judicial
custody today itself.

25. A certified copy of this order shall
be provided to Mr. J.K. Upadhyay, learned
A.G.A. for the State to communicate the
same to the the Director General of Police,
State of U.P. at Lucknow and the
Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi.
----------
(2022)04ILR A345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 483 No. 17 of 2022

Anoop Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui, Anjum Ara,
Devesh Deo Bhatt, Mohd. Shahanshah
Newaz Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Practice & Procedure - The Court directed
that all Judicial Officers in State of U.P. shall
strictly and literally comply with the circulars
issued by this Court. (Para 11)
Application Disposed of. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Irfan
Siddiqui,
learned
counsel
for
petitioner/applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on
record.

2. By means of this petition under
Section 483 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has
sought following reliefs:-

"Wherefore,
it
is
most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to direct the
opposite party no. 2 to release the accused
immediately impugned Case Crime No.
(FIR No._ 93 of 2020, under Sections 409,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC Police
Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow
(State Vs. Anoop Kumar) as per circular
(C.L. No.3/Admin.(G) dated 16.02.2009,
Allahabad) issued by Hon'ble High Court
for
subordinate
court,
contained
as
Annexure No. 1 to this petition.

3. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to conduct the
inquiry for unnecessary delay to release
accused from the jail just for disobedience
the circular clear cut and also compensate
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to accused for unnecessary detention from
the responsible authorities i.e. opposite
party no. 3 of present petition."

4.

Learned
counsel
for
petitioner/applicant has submits that bail
was granted by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Lucknow on
30.11.2021. In compliance of bail order, the
applicant filed two sureties before the court
concerned on 08.12.2021. Thereafter the
court below sent the sureties bond for
verification to the concerned Police Station
and Regional Transport Office, Lucknow
but when the verification of surety is not
completed by the concerned Police Station
and
Regional
Transport
Office
then
thereafter the petitioner approached the
concerned court and filed application dated
22.12.2021 along with circular of this
Court with prayer to accept the bail bonds
for provisional release of the applicant in
the light of circular issued by this Court.

5. On 20.12.2021 both the sureties
were present before the court below but the
trial court failed to comply the direction
issued by this Court vide Circular (C.L.
No.3/Admin.(G) dated 16.02.2009) as court
below neither provisionally accepted the
bail bonds nor passed any order nor
assigned any reason. It is further submitted
that on 13.01.2022 suo motu passed the
order "permitted" without any knowledge
of petitioner. It is further submitted that till
date the verification of the surety is still
pending before the trial court regarding
which the questionnaire was filed by the
applicant. As per information folio, it
indicates that surety Dharam Singh status
verification received from Police Station
Talkatora, Lucknow on 22.03.2022, and
verification of surety Shiv Bihari received
from A.R.T.O., Lucknow on 22.03.2022.
But the status verification of surety Shiv
Bihari is still pending from Police Station
concerned. Thus the verification of status is
still pending since lapse of 102 days. The
trial court did not call any explanation for
the delay from the concerned authority nor
take any suitable action against the
delinquent official so, learned counsel for
petitioner prays for taking appropriate
action against the official in default.

6. In this regard, a detailed comments
of
Judicial
Magistrate-I,
C.B.C.I.D.,
Lucknow through District Judge, Lucknow
was
called
within
seven
days
on
08.03.2022 and the date was fixed for
21.03.2022. Again on 21.03.2022 the case
was fixed for hearing but no report from
the court below was received on the said
date to this Court. Thereafter again a
reminder
was
issued
to
trial
court
concerned and the report of Judicial
Magistrate-I dated 16.03.2022, which was
duly forwarded by District Judge, Lucknow
was received but the explanation of Judicial
Magistrate-I C.B.C.I.D. Lucknow was
received in the office on 24.03.2022. Thus
it is desirable that the District Judge,
Lucknow to look into the matter and fix the
responsibility of official in default.

7. As per circular, it is clearly
mentioned that if the verification report is
awaited within time, and the application
filed for provisional acceptance of the bail
bonds along with surety and prayer for
provisional release of the accused then it is
the bounden duty of the learned Magistrate
concerned to literally comply the order of
circular issued by this Court.

8. This is very sorry state of affairs.
The explanation submitted by the Judicial
Magistrate, C.B.C.I.D. is not convincing.
Perusal of the explanation shows that the
court below did not assign any reason why
4 All. Anoop Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
the provisional bail bond was not accepted.
The conduct of the Judicial Officer is
deprecated and warn be careful in future.

9. The District Judge, Lucknow is
hereby directed to circulate the circular
(C.L. No.3/Admin.(G) dated 16.02.2009,
Allahabad) issued by Hon'ble High Court
for subordinate court and among other
official with the direction that they do their
duties as per aforesaid circular and always
take action against the official in default.

10. At the outset, it is necessary to
reproduce the Circular (C.L. No. 3/Admin.
(G)/Dated : Allahabad: 162.2009) reads as
under:

"Upon
consideration
of
the
direction of Hon'ble High Court in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 4356/08 Shiv
Shyam Pandey versus State of U.P. and
others and in the wake of receipt of
representation of the Bar complaining
against considerable delay taking place in
respect of verification of the address and
status of the sureties filed before the
Subordinate Courts, the Hon'ble Court has
been pleased to direct that in super session
of earlier Circular Letter No.44/98 dated
20.8.1998 and Circular Letter No. 58/98
dated 5.11.1998, the following guidelines
shall be followed by the Judicial Officer of
Subordinate Courts:-

1. In serious cases such as
murder, dacoity rape and cases falling
under NDPS Act, two sureties should
normally be directed to be filed and the
amount of the surety bonds should be fixed
commensurate with the gravity of the
offence.

2.
The
address
and
status
verification of the sureties shall be obtained
within reasonable time, say seven days in
case of local sureties, 15 days in case of
sureties being of other district and one
month in case of sureties being of other
State, positively from the concerned Police
and revenue authorities and in case of non
receipt of the report within given time, the
concerned Court may call for explanation
for
the
delay
from
the
concerned
authorities and take suitable action against
them and at the same time may consider
granting provisional release of the accused
person in appropriate cases subject to the
condition that in case of any discrepancies
being reported by the verifying authorities,
the accused shall surrender forthwith.

3. The Courts must insist on filing
of black and white photographs of the
sureties which must have been prepared
from the negative.

4. The copies of the title deeds
filed in support of solvency of status should
be verified.

5. In cases where the Court feels
that there are chances of plantation of
drugs to implicate a person in a case
covered under the NDPS Act, the amount of
surety bonds may be suitable reduced.

I, am therefore, to request you to
kindly bring the contents of the Circular
Letter to all the Judicial Officers, working
under your administrative control for strict
compliance of the directions."

11. Keeping in view the direction as
issued in the aforesaid circular by this
Court, it is desirable that all the Judicial
Officers in State of U.P. shall strictly and
literally comply the circular issued by this
Court. Therefore, it is hereby directed that
all the District Judge of Uttar Pradesh
shall ensure monthly review in Monitoring
Cell Meeting for pending verification of
the bail bonds and sureties beyond
prescribed time and also ensure whether
the proper action was taken against the
delinquent official.
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. With the aforesaid observations/
directions this petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

13. The Registrar General of this
Court is also hereby directed to circulate
the order of this Court as well as circular
(C.L.
No.
3/Admin.
(G)/Dated
:
Allahabad: 162.2009) among all the
Judicial Offices of Uttar Pradesh, all the
revenue authorities of U.P. through
District Magistrates and D.G.P. of Uttar
Pradesh also directed to circulate the
order of this Court to all the Police
Stations of Uttar Pradesh for strict
compliance.
----------
(2022)04ILR A348
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 58 of 2022

Gajraj Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Prem Sagar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4-B & 25(2) - General
body of the society - Membership -
Modification in the member's list - Power
of Registrar, extent thereof - Scope of
enquiry by the Registrar u/s 4-B - Noninclusion of petitioner as a member -
Effect - Establishment of right as a
member of society - Jurisdiction of civil
court, when can be availed - Held, the
Registrar
in
order
to
examine
the
correctness of the list of members u/s 4-B
of the Act is only required to see the
inclusion and deletion of the members and
to modify the list accordingly. He is not
enjoined upon to go into the validity of the
list of members already finalized except
for deleting some of those members who
may have died or ceased to be the
members otherwise, which is not the case
at hand - Held further, appellant/ writ
petitioner is required to establish his
rights as a Member of the General Body of
the Society before the Civil Court and only
thereafter approach the Registrar under
Section 4-B of the Act. (Para 13 and 14)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. T.P. Singh Vs Registrar/Asst. Registrar, Firms
Societies & Chits, Teliyarganj & ors.; 2018 (11)
ADJ 586
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. This intra Court Appeal under the
Rules of the Court has been filed questioning
the order of the learned Single Judge dated
20.01.2022 passed in Writ-C No.771 of 2022
(Gajraj Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others)
whereby the second prayer pressed i.e. to
issue Mandamus to the second respondent to
consider and decide the objections of the
appellant/writ petitioner dated 16.11.2021
and 30.11.2021 before finalizing the list of
members of the General Body of the Society
in question and holding the elections u/s
25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860,
has been declined leaving it open for the
appellant/writ petitioner to ventilate his
grievances at the appropriate stage before the
appropriate forum.

2. The record reveals that the
registration of the society in question had