# Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 154 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-01-16 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1359 of 2012 - **Bench:** S.C. Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-42145 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application-offence under section 302 IPC-deceased developed love affairs with daughter of applicant-with sole purpose to entice away the daughter altercation took place-deceased shoot dead the son of applicant-wife of 1 All] Ashok Kumar V. State of U.P. 155 applicant also got injured-inself defence the applicant also fired upon deceased-a clear of private defence-entitled for bail. Held:Para 4 The incident took place at the house of the applicant. The deceased Dinkar wanted to entice away the daughter of the applicant. In the altercation that ensued, son of the applicant was shot dead and wife of the applicant was seriously injured by Dinkar (the deceased). A prima facie case of right to private defense is made out and applicant is entitled to bail. ## Text 154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 by the bank during the period w.e.f. 18.4.1993 to 19.11.1994. 8. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertains to reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals and provides that where the appropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute to the appropriate Board, Court or Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. 9. It is settled law that the Central Government is not empowered to adjudicate upon the matter for the purpose of referring the dispute. It is for the workman to establish that he was employed by the bank during the period w.e.f. 18.4.1993 to 19.11.1994 and that a valid dispute existed or was apprehended. It is also apparent that the Central Government did not refer the dispute considering as to whether any dispute was apprehended or existed. The validity of dispute cannot be determined by him as it is a matter of adjudication. 10. As regards question of limitation is concerned, it is for the Labour Court to grant relief or not to grant relief taking into consideration the question of delay. The Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare legislation for settlement of industrial dispute between an employer and the employee. Even an apprehended dispute can be referred what to say of an existing dispute. In our considered opinion, suffice it to say that as the Central Government has refused to refer the dispute by adjudicating upon the matter itself it has stepped into the shoes of the Labour Court, or the Industrial Tribunal or the appropriate Board, we quash the impugned order dated 18.6.2002 as well as the judgment and order dated 25.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32844 of 2003, Manoj Kumar Sahu versus Union of India and others. 11. Since the matter has been lingering on since 1994 before the Regional Conciliation Officer and before the Court in writ petition as well as in special appeal, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice to direct the authority concerned to refer the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Central Government within a period of one month from today. 12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL,J Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1359 of 2012 Ashok Kumar ....Applicant Versus. State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.P.Srivastava Sri J.P. Singh. Counsel for the Respondent: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application-offence under section 302 IPC-deceased developed love affairs with daughter of applicant-with sole purpose to entice away the daughter altercation took place-deceased shoot dead the son of applicant-wife of 1 All] Ashok Kumar V. State of U.P. 155 applicant also got injured-inself defence the applicant also fired upon deceased-a clear of private defence-entitled for bail. Held:Para 4 The incident took place at the house of the applicant. The deceased Dinkar wanted to entice away the daughter of the applicant. In the altercation that ensued, son of the applicant was shot dead and wife of the applicant was seriously injured by Dinkar (the deceased). A prima facie case of right to private defense is made out and applicant is entitled to bail. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J. ) 1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, senior advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this case is a glaring example of exercise of right of private defense. On 14.10.2011, the deceased Dinkar @ Bharat Bhushan, accompanied by two other persons, came to the house of the applicant and shot Sugam, the son of the applicant, dead. The wife of the applicant caught hold of Dinkar. She was also fired at and got injured. FIR was lodged by the applicant against Dinkar same day at 7:45 P.M. at P.S. Sidhpura, District Kanshi Ram Nagar, which was registered at crime no.403 of 2011 under sections 302, 307 IPC. Subsequently, Dinkar died and father of Dinkar, the present first informant - Urti, lodged instant FIR after 6 days on 20.10.2011 virtually admitting all the facts in the same. As per the FIR, Dinkar had love affair with the daughter of the applicant. He went to the house of the applicant to bring daughter of the applicant with him. There was an altercation. Dinkar fired causing gunshot injury to the son of the applicant. The applicant also fired causing injuries to Dinkar. Dinkar also fired at the wife of the applicant causing injuries. 3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 4. The incident took place at the house of the applicant. The deceased Dinkar wanted to entice away the daughter of the applicant. In the altercation that ensued, son of the applicant was shot dead and wife of the applicant was seriously injured by Dinkar (the deceased). A prima facie case of right to private defense is made out and applicant is entitled to bail. 5. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let applicant Ashok Kumar, involved in case crime no.403-A of 2011 under Section 302 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Sidhpura, District Kanshiram Nagar, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and also subject to the following conditions : (a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him ; and (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. --------- 156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 22.02.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA,J. Criminal Appeal No. - 1608 of 2002 Prakash Saran Sinha ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Manish Kumar Sri Manju Khare Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate Criminal Appeal-Quantum of punishment-conviction of 2 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 5 (I) (E) and 5 (2) of Prevention of corruption Act-at present age of Appellant 83 years-already lost his reputation and credit-further incarceration not justified-heldconsidering growing age conviction order modified to already undergone by enhancing Quantum of fine from 25,000 to 1 Lakh. Held: Para 11 I have perused the papers from which it is apparent that age of appellant in the year, 1986 was 60 years. In character certificate, date of birth of the appellant is 09.02.1929, as such age of appellant at present is nearly 83 years and no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail at this stage. Learned counsel for appellant agrees that raise in fine would not amount to enhancement. Case law discussed: [AIR, 2011, Supreme Court, 3845] (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J. ) 1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar assisted by Sri Manju Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2002 passed by Sri K.P. Singh, Special Judge, P.C. Act, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 1/86 (State Vs. P.S. Sinha) whereby appellant (Prakash Saran Sinha) has been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(E) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced for a period of two years simple imprisonment, apart from fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default, six months simple imprisonment was awarded. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on merits judgment of trial court is unassailable, however, he has addressed the Court on the quantum. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was working as Assistant Excise Commissioner, a promoted post from where he retired long back. Presently, he is nearly 83 years old. No useful purpose would be served by sending him jail at the fag end of life. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he has already remained in jail for sometime. He has lost his reputation and credit and further incarceration would be not at all justifiable. 5. Learned A.G.A. submits that fine and minimum sentence cannot be reduced and in support of his case he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of A.B. Bhaskara Rao