Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 105 (ALL)

Kaushal Kishore Verma v. State Of U. P.

2011-01-17

SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA

body2011
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Heard Mr. R.P.Misra II, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate. Through the instant petition presented before this Court under Section 483 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the courts below to accept surrender of the petitioner and disposal of his bail application same day which is pending before the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Lucknow as fixed disposal on 15.01.2011 as law laid down by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Pradeep Tyagi Versus State of U.P. and Others, [2009 (3) JIC 704 (All]. Section 483 Cr.P.C. is extracted below:- "483. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over courts of Judicial Magistrates:- Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrate." Under the strength of the aforesaid provisions the petitioner is interested to get?? disposed of the application for bail; whereas , the learned Magistrate has? yet? to take cognizance of the offence in the matter. The petitioner's writ petition being writ petition no. 11180 of 2010 (M/B) challenging? the first information report lodged against him has already been dismissed? by? the Division Bench of this Court by means of order dated? 19.11.2010 in the following manner:- " We have gone through the contents of the First Information Report which disclose commission of cognizable offence, as such, we are not inclined? to interfere in the F.I.R. .The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed."? It is not in dispute that the matter is? under investigation, at this stage, only the petitioner's application of bail? is pending? since 6.1.2011. The next date? on the petitioner's application of bail is fixed on 20.1.2011.?? Definitely at the time of? disposal of the application of bail? the petitioner accused shall remain? present. The petitioner also does not protest the appearance rather seeks expeditious disposal of the application of bail on the same day, in light of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Tyagi (Supra). He invited the attention of this court particularly? towards? paragraph 14 of the? aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced hereinunder:- 14. "It is expected that in all cases where the Magistrate is not? He invited the attention of this court particularly? towards? paragraph 14 of the? aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced hereinunder:- 14. "It is expected that in all cases where the Magistrate is not? restrained from granting bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. , where an accused moves an application? for consideration of his prayer for bail? through his counsel, even without orders of the High Court, the Magistrate may fix a convenient date for the appearance of the accused, and direct the Public Prosecutor to seek? instructions from the Investigation Officer in the meanwhile. Between the date? of moving of the surrender application? and the date fixed for appearance of the accused by the Magistrate,? the accused may not be arrested without permission of the court concerned. In case? the Magistrate, is not in a position to finally dispose of the bail on the date? fixed, he may consider releasing the? appellant? on interim bail till the date of final hearing of the bail application in the light of the observations hereinabove. This direction is needed to prevent all accused persons whose cases do not fall within the interdict of Section 437, C.P.C.? rushing to this court seeking protection, and for this Court having to pass orders in each individual case, creating a huge back log of criminal writ petitions, which then engage the attention of? a number of benches, and come in the way of disposal of the large number of pending Division Bench murder and other appeals." As is evident from the aforesaid judgment, it is provided by this Court that in case the learned Magistrate? is not in a position to finally? dispose of the? bail on the date fixed , he may consider the releasing appellant on interim bail till the date of? final hearing of the bail application? in the light of the observations hereinabove. This direction has been made? to prevent? all accused persons whose cases? do not fall? within the? interdict? of Section? 437 Cr.P.C. rushing? to this Court seeking protection, and for this court having to pass orders? in each individual case,creating a huge back log of criminal writ petitions, which then engage the attention of? a number of benches, and come in the way of disposal of the large number of pending Division Bench murder and other appeals. Upon perusal of the fact and circumstances of the case as well as? in each individual case,creating a huge back log of criminal writ petitions, which then engage the attention of? a number of benches, and come in the way of disposal of the large number of pending Division Bench murder and other appeals. Upon perusal of the fact and circumstances of the case as well as? judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred hereinabove, I am of the view that the stage? for following the guidelines framed in the judgment is yet to reach, therefore, I am of the view that present petition is? premature and being so ,the same is dismissed.