Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1520 (ALL)

Privvrat Singh @ Uttam Singh v. State of U. P

2015-06-11

SHASHI KANT

body2015
JUDGMENT Shashi Kant, J. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of charge sheet No.36/13 dated 15.07.2013, summoning order dated 17.09.2013, order dated 24.4.2015 issuing non-bailable warrant against applicants as also entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.73 of 2014 (State Vs. Uttam Singh & Anr.) arising out of Case Crime No.98 of 2013 under Sections 304-A, 504, 506 IPC Section 39/40 Electricity Act, P.S. Malipur, District Ambedkar Nagar pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ambedkar Nagar. 3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that he restricts his prayer to the extent that the Courts below be directed to consider their bail application expeditiously in accordance with law, to which learned A.G.A. has no objection. 4. In view of aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is disposed of with the direction that if the applicants surrender before the courts below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati & Another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290, as affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). 5. Till the aforesaid period of four weeks, the effect and operation of the order dated 24.04.2015 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicants shall remain stayed and no coercive measures shall be taken against them pursuant to the aforesaid order. 6. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as an implied direction of this Court to grant bail to the applicants and the trial court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance to law.