Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3277 (ALL)

Vimla Devi and Others v. State of U. P. & Others

2010-10-22

AMAR SARAN, SURENDRA SINGH

body2010
Surendra Singh, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR in case crime No. 431 of 2010, under sections 147/148/149/506 IPC, PS Naini, district Allahabad. 3. The writ court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed. Hence, no ground exists for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners. 4. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioners No. 1 and 3 to 11 ( Smt. Vimla Devi, Praveen, Jeetu, Pramod, Prabhad, Shishu, Ashoka, Sujeet, Raj Kumar and Kul Bhushan Pandey move an application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about ten days thereafter for the appearance of the aforementioned petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. 5. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and as far as possible also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioner in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. 6. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit provided that the adjournment of hearing of the regular bail on one or more dates should not exceed a total period of one month. 7. 7. It will also be in the discretion of the Sessions/Special Judge concerned to consider granting interim bail pending consideration of the regular bail on similar terms as mentioned herein above when and if the petitioners apply for bail before him. 8. In case the petitioners fail to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or they fail to cooperate with the investigating officer during investigation, it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for cancelling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits. 9. However, so far as petitioner No. 2 Pradeep Mehra is concerned, as there is an earlier criminal case pending against him, it is directed that if he appears before the court concerned within three weeks and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously. 10. The benefit of this order will only be available to the petitioners if the averments made in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit that the petitioners except petitioner No. 2, have no criminal history is found correct. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.