Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3770 (ALL)

Rahila Begum v. State of U. P. And Another

2010-12-21

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2010
Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 463 of 2010 (State Vs. Rajveer Sharma and another) under section 420 IPC and 198 Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh and also for quashing of the chargesheet dated 14.01.2010 filed in the aforesaid case. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant had purchased 107 sq. yrds. of land situated in Gata No. 285 and 307 and the allegation made against the applicant by the Gram Pradhan is that the land belonging to the Gram Samaj has been sold by Sri Rajveer Sharma and has been pruchased by the applicant and the applicant has been trying to encroach upon the land of the Gram Sabha. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser for value of the land in question from Rajveer Sharma. This 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, the prayer for quashing the proceedings and the chargesheet is refused. However, in the circumstances of the case, since the applicant is a lady, it is provided that if the petitioner moves 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 petitioner and in the meantime release the petitioner 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. In case the petitioner fails 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 canceling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.