JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded. 3. The law regarding the sufficiency of the material which may justify the summoning of the accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. 4. The quashing of the charge sheet or the proceeding consequent thereupon, may be done only if the F.I.R. and the evidence or material collected by the Investigating Officer does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear. 5. The perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them. 6. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. 7. However, a request on behalf of the applicants has been made by the counsel that as the applicants want to surrender in the court and propose to move an application for bail, a protective direction may be issued to the lower court to decide the same on the same day in the light of the law laid down in Amarawati and others Vs. State of U.P. 2004(57), ALR 290. 8. It may be observed that the law regarding the hearing of bail applications on the same day and all its related aspects have been comprehensively dealt with in the aforesaid case of Amarawati and others Vs. State of U.P. 2004(57), ALR 290 relied upon by the counsel which was also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009(3) ADJ 322(SC). All the courts must endeavour to decide the bail applications on the same day in suitable cases, if it is possible for them to do so depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in question. This is a matter of lower court's discretion which they must exercise judiciously in appropriate cases. 9. Above mentioned Full Bench decision of this Court and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court are binding on the lower courts. They must be followed in letter and spirit. There is no need to pass separate orders in this regard. 10. However, it is directed that if the applicants surrender and move their bail application within one month from today, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to in the aforesaid period or till the date of their appearance in the court below, whichever is earlier. 11. It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if the applicants do not avail of this order in the stipulated period of time. 12. With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.