Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2067 (ALL)

Sonu @ Shashank v. State of U. P.

2015-07-23

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5531 of 2014 (State Vs. Ganesh Shankar Bajpai and others), pending before the M.M., Court No.10, Kanpur in pursuance of the charge sheet No.86 of 2014 dated 16.10.2014 arising out of case crime no.124 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 427, 336, 323, 504, 506, 448, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. Police Station Harbansh Mohal, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are living separately and have no role in the aforesaid case. It is also contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 4. 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 submission made at the bar 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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 5. The prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings is refused. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 5. The prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his 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 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. It is contended that the applicant No.1 is a student and he is selected for the post of Sub-Inspector in dying in harness rule, it is, therefore, provided that the prayer for bail of the applicant No.1 may be considered, if possible on the same day.