Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1861 (ALL)

Sunil Agrahari (Gupta) v. State of U. P.

2014-06-16

AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Akhtar Husain Khan, J. 1. Petitioners Sunil Agrahari Gupta and Murari Lal Sahu have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2041 of 2012 (State Vs. Kapoor Chandra Rastogi and others), under sections 147, 148, 152, 332, 353, 504, 153-A I.P.C. and 7 section Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Salon, District Raibarielly pending in the Court of J.M. II, Court No. 19, Raibarielly. 2. Learned A.G.A. has appeared and accepted notice for opposite party no. 1. Opposite party no. 2 is absent. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 4. From perusal of the petition as well as papers submitted alongwith petition it is apparent that after investigation police submitted chargesheet in Crime No. 141 of 2010, under sections 147, 148, 152, 332, 504, 153-A I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Salon, District Raibarielly against petitioners Sunil Agrahari Gupta and Murari Lal Sahu alongwith four others accused. Thereafter learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on report submitted by police and has registered Criminal Case No. 2041 of 2012 (State Vs. Kapoor Chandra Rastogi and others). The cognizance taken by the Magistrate is in accordance with law. There does not appear any illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance by Magistrate. 5. In view of above I am of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C., hence the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 6. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that a direction should be made to the Magistrate of the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of bail application in accordance with settled principle laid down by the seven Judges of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) A.L.R. 290, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of. 7. In my opinion direction prayed for expeditious disposal of bail application is justified. 7. In my opinion direction prayed for expeditious disposal of bail application is justified. Therefore, learned Magistrate is directed that if the petitioners appear/surrender within 30 days from today before Magistrate/Trial Court and apply for bail, their bail applications shall be disposed off by Magistrate/Trial Court expeditiously in accordance with settled principle laid down by the seven Judges of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) A.L.R. 290, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (4) SCC 437 . 8. Till the expiry of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.