Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 565 (ALL)

Rabeesh Sharma v. State of U. P.

2014-02-17

VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Virendra Vikram Singh,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA. 1. So far as the facts are concerned, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants from the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. 2. From the perusal of the 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, relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.Saraful Haq and another (Para 10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 3. With all vehemence, an argument has been made that the order of taking cognizance by the court concerned dated 3.7.2013 is illegal as the same has been passed in a printed proforma and from this order annexed to the chargesheet, it cannot be inferred that the magistrate applied his mind to the facts of this case before taking cognizance in the matter. 4. The cognizance in any case is registered on the chargesheet and the order is based on the ordersheet. No ordersheet showing the cognizance has been filed on behalf of the applicants which clearly reveals that the applicants are shy of producing the order of taking cognizance before the Court. Thus, it cannot be observed that the cognizance taken by the magistrate is illegal. No ground for quashing the proceeding is made out. 5. The prayer for quashing the proceeding of the aforesaid case is, hereby refused. 6. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within a period of 30 days from today along with the certified copy of this order and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 , after hearing the public prosecutor. 7. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive process shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them and no protection of this order shall be available to them. 8. It is being made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the subordinate court shall exercise its independent discretion in deciding the application for bail. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.