Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 570 (ALL)

Gulam Hussain 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. 2. By moving the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C., Charge sheet and orders dated 07.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed in Case No. 4144 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, have been prayed to be quashed. 3. 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 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. 4. No case for quashing the charge sheet and orders dated 07.09.2012 and 13.11.2013 is made out and as such the prayer is declined. 5. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 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 by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and the decision of the Hon'ble 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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.