Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 569 (ALL)

Durgesh Gupta v. State of U. P.

2014-02-17

VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Virendra Vikram Singh,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. 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 applicant. All the submissions made, relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 4 82 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. The prayer for quashing the non-bailable warrant and proceeding issued against the applicant is, hereby refused. 4. However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within a period of 30 days from today along with the certified copy of this order and applies for bail, his 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. 5. 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 applicant. However, in case the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him and no protection of this order shall be available to him. 6. 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. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.