Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 633 (ALL)

Udayveer v. State of U. P.

2014-02-19

VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Virendra Vikram Singh,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA. 1. By moving the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., proceedings of Case No. 416 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 371 of 2013, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh, has been prayed to be quashed. 2. It has been argued that the applicants have falsely been implicated in this case to the extent that applicant No.5, Sundar son of Guddu who is less than seven years of age has also been arrayed as accused in the FIR. 3. Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, wherein it has been accepted that the date of birth of Sundar applicant No.5 is 04.03.2008. 4. The occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 27.06.2013 and on this date the applicant Sundar was definitely less than seven years of age, hence he is entitled to the protection of Section 82 IPC. So far as proceedings in the aforesaid case against the applicant No.5 Sundar son of Guddu who is aged about less than seven years is hereby quashed. 5. So far as the other accused persons, there appears prima facie case against them and at this stage it cannot be inferred that any abuse of process has taken place by filing charge sheet against them. No case for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case against applicants No. 1 to 4 is made out and as such the prayer for them is declined. 6. However, it is directed that if the applicants No. 1 to 4 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. 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. 8. 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. 8. 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. 9. The applicants shall have a right to plead discharge during trial at proper stage of trial for which no adjournment shall be granted. 10. 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 applications for bail and discharge. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application is finally disposed of.