Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 572 (ALL)

Jaipal v. State of U. P. and another

2010-02-11

SURENDRA SINGH

body2010
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 21.10.2008 and 9.2.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Jhansi in Case No. 2261 of 2009 (State Versus Jaipal) under Section 304-A I.P.C., Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi and also the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi thereby issuing N.B.W. against the applicant. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 4. From the perusal of 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, State of Bihar versus P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cr) 192, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works LTD. versus Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another (Para 10), 2005 SCC (Cr.)283. 5. The prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused. 6. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears or surrenders before the courts below within a period of 3 weeks from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Versus State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR-290 (affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P.) and the case of Sukhwant Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2009 Vol.VII, SCC 559, after hearing the Public Prosecutor.. For a period of 3 weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. For a period of 3 weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, it will be open to the court concerned to take recourses to all the process which is permissible under the law for procuring and ensuring the presence of the accused. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of finally.