# Girjesh Chaudhari & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. 456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES - **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 455 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-08-27 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7652 of 2025 - **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/girjesh-chaudhari-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-456-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-53703 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Amrendra Nath Rai, G.A., Sanjay Singh Issue for Consideration The applicant is a government servant(Clerk in Nagar Panchayat who was suspended from his job on 28.07.2023 following his convictionAppellant sought suspension due to job suspension and departmental charge-sheet as he is sole breadwinner. Headnotes Criminal law-Criminal procedure code,1973-S. 389(1)-Suspension of Conviction and sentence-Indian Penal Code,1973-Ss. 304, 307, 504 ,S.25 of the Arms act-Appellate courts can suspend conviction in exceptional cases considering the factors include accusation nature, crime manner, gravity of offenceapplication allowed-Conviction and sentence dated 13.07.2023 suspended pending appeal. Held The court held that the power under section 389(1) Crpc to suspend conviction exists but confined to exceptional cases,not routine upon mere filing of appeal-Court must assess offence gravity crime nature,manner, post-conviction release desirability, and convictions' ramifications-Prior bail compliance during trial loses significance post conviction-In instant case offences unconnected to appellants positionsuspension of conviction would not breach service rule ## Text 8 All. Girjesh Chaudhari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 455 is a cross case, from both the sides FIRs have been registered and both the sides have sustained injuries. No weapon has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. The appellant has no criminal history. the sward has been shown in the hands of one accused Gaurav Tiwari. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had have submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 10. Let the appellant-Balwant Pandey involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. ---------- (2025) 8 ILRA 455 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Criminal Appeal No. 7652 of 2025 Girjesh Chaudhari & Ors. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents 456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Appellants: Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. Issue for Consideration The appellants prayed the entire proceeding of criminal case no. 13 of 2021 as well as the summoning order dated 29.07.2025 Headnotes Criminal law-SC/ST Act-S. 14A(1),3(1)(dha) -Indian Penal Code,1860Ss.147, 323, 504, 452-Challenge tosummoning order-The court held after perusing the material on record, it cannot be said that no offense is made out-At the initial stage of quashing proceedings, the court will not adjudicate disputed question of fact or consider the accused's defence-petition disposed of. Held The court must only see a prima facie case in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Phrmaceuticals-The court emphasized that the appellants' proper recourse for arguing their defense is to file a discharge application before the trial court-The appeal was disposed of with the aforesaid directions.(Para 4,5) (E-6) Case law Cited R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj. A.I.R (1960) S.C. 866, St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal(1992) SCC (Cr.) 426, St. of Bih. Vs P.P. Sharma (1992) SCC (Cr.), Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd. Saraful Haq & Anr. (Para-10) (2005) SCC (Cr.) 283-referred to. List of Acts SC/ST Act,1986, Indian Penal Code,1860 List of Keywords prima facie case, discharge,offence, summoning order, disputed question of fact, Siddharth Nagar. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7652 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Girjesh Chaudhari & 6 Ors Vs.State of U.P. & Anr. Appearances for Parties Advs. for Appellant(s): Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Adv. for Respondent(s):- G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) 1.Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2.This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to quash/set aside the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case no. 13 of 2021, (Sanjay Vs. Girjesh Chaudhari and others), as well as summoning order dated 29.7.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST(P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Complaint Case no. 13 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452 IPC and Section 3 (1) (dha) SC/ST (P.A) Act, P.S. Shohratgarh,District Siddharth Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Session /Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar. 3.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no offence against the appellants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. 8 All. Munnu Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. 457 4.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 the appellants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.IR. 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the appellant has got a right of discharge before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. 5.The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order of the aforementioned case is refused. 6.With the aforesaid directions, this criminal appeal is finally disposed of. ---------- (2025) 8 ILRA 457 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Appeal No. 7985 of 2023 Munnu Singh & Anr. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Om Narayan Pandey, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Umesh Kumar Singh, Vinod Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for the Respondent: Amrendra Nath Rai, G.A., Sanjay Singh Issue for Consideration The applicant is a government servant(Clerk in Nagar Panchayat who was suspended from his job on 28.07.2023 following his convictionAppellant sought suspension due to job suspension and departmental charge-sheet as he is sole breadwinner. Headnotes Criminal law-Criminal procedure code,1973-S. 389(1)-Suspension of Conviction and sentence-Indian Penal Code,1973-Ss. 304, 307, 504 ,S.25 of the Arms act-Appellate courts can suspend conviction in exceptional cases considering the factors include accusation nature, crime manner, gravity of offenceapplication allowed-Conviction and sentence dated 13.07.2023 suspended pending appeal. Held The court held that the power under section 389(1) Crpc to suspend conviction exists but confined to exceptional cases,not routine upon mere filing of appeal-Court must assess offence gravity crime nature,manner, post-conviction release desirability, and convictions' ramifications-Prior bail compliance during trial loses significance post conviction-In instant case offences unconnected to appellants positionsuspension of conviction would not breach service rules permitting termination during criminal probes involving moral turpitude or duty related charges-Conviction and sentence suspended pending appeal-inoperative till disposal.(Para 7 to 9) (E-6) Case law Cited Rama Narang Vs Ramesh Narang (1995)2 SCC 513[1995 Lawsuit (SC) 113],Navjot Singh Sidhu