Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1117 (ALL)

Kishor Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-04-07

HET SINGH YADAV

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The applicants have filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (in short the Code) seeking direction to the lower court concerned to consider and decide their bail applications on the same day if filed by the applicants in the court below in Case Crime No. 117 of 2013 under Sections 363, 366-A, I.P.C. Police Station-Narwal, District-Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in this case just because of reason that they happen to be the father and real brother of co-accused Suno @ Devpriya. As per F.I.R. and complainant's own version his daughter left her home out of own volition. Co-accused Suno @ Devpriya, who allegedly enticed away the daughter of the complainant, has been granted bail by the court below. Learned counsel strenuously urged that the court below be directed to consider and dispose of bail application of the applicants on the same day on which it is to be filed, in view of law laid down in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). 4. Learned A.G.A. repudiates the submission made as above. It is pointed out that in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18548 of 2013 filed by the applicants a Division Bench of this Court vide order 24.9.2013 has already directed that if the petitioners appear/surrender before the court concerned within two weeks from the date of order and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law. Therefore, this application seeking the same relief is not maintainable. Moreover, this court, it is argued, cannot exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code giving direction regarding the manner in which the bail application of the applicants should be considered by the court below as held by the apex court in S.E. Investment Ltd. Vs. Purnendu Shekharmal Jain and others in Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 2012. 5. Purnendu Shekharmal Jain and others in Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 2012. 5. A seven Judges Bench of this Court in Amrawati's Case (Supra) has dealt with comprehensively with the law in respect to the prayer for hearing the bail application on the same day which has been approved by the apex court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's Case (Supra). 6. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts. All authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of the country shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. Therefore, no specific direction need be issued to follow the law laid down as above in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's Case (Supra). The courts below are supposed to follow the law laid down as above by this Court in Amrawati's Case (supra) which has been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's Case (Supra) in letter and spirit, no specific direction need be issued. The application is disposed of finally.