Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3031 (ALL)

Rakesh Shamshery v. State of U. P.

2015-09-23

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of order dated 01.11.2013 whereby cognizance was taken as well as order dated 24.8.2015 whereby non-bailable warrants have been issued by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Meerut in Criminal Case No.11 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Mohan Singh Upadhyay and others) u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C. and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arising out of Case Crime No.655 of 2009, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Etah and also seeking the quashing of the proceedings of aforesaid Criminal Case No.11 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Mohan Singh Upadhyay and others) pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Meerut. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Entire record has been perused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed the prayer with regard to quashing of the impugned orders and the impugned proceedings and has confined his argument only to this much that as the applicant is a law abiding citizen he does not want to evade the process of law and wants to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. However, a request has been made by the counsel that as it is being desired by the accused-applicant to obtain bail after surrendering in the court below, a protective direction may be issued to the lower court to decide the proposed bail application on the same day in the light of the law laid down in Full Bench decision of Amarawati and others Vs. State of U.P. 2004(57), ALR 290. 5. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer with regard to quashing of the impugned orders and the impugned proceedings stands refused. 6. 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 Full Bench decision 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). 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. 7. 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. 8. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it may be observed that if after surrendering in the court below an application for bail is moved on behalf of the accused-applicant within four weeks from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law as has been laid down in aforementioned cases. 9. No coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to in the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier. 10. It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not availed by the accused in the stipulated period of time. 11. It is further clarified that for the present this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court. 12. With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.