Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3797 (ALL)

Soni Agrawal v. State of U. P. & Another

2010-12-22

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2010
Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. A mention has been made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a lady, who is not named in the first information report, and charge sheet has been filed against her and against whom process under Section 82, Cr.P.C. has also been issued, hence, the matter may be taken up out of turn. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present 482, Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no. 2270 of 2009 (case crime no. 26224 of 2009) under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Bareilly and also for quashing the process issued against the applicant under Section 82, Cr.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the first information report and the charge sheet has been filed against her. It is also contended that the informant has given statement that BC was being run in the name of applicant, thus, it is contended that, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. This Court in the present 482, Cr.P.C. application 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, prayer for quashing the proceedings and process under Section 82, Cr.P.C. order is refused. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicant 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 applicant and in the meantime release the applicant 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 applicant 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, 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 applicant applies for bail before him. In case the applicant fails to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or she fails 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. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.