Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2191 (ALL)

Chhotelal Sonkar v. State of U. P.

2016-06-14

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Chhotelal Sonkar and Surendra Singh, applicants have moved present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C assailing the validity of the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Court No. 5, Gorakhpur in Special Trial No. 17 of 2004, State Vs. Indradev Pandey and others, arising out of case crime no. 774 of 1990, under Sections 217, 218, 120B IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh wherein learned Special Judge, (Anti Corruption), Court No. 5, Gorakhpur has proceeded to refuse to discharge the applicants. 2. On the matter being taken up today, Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted before us that incident in question is more than two decade old and in view of this, application for discharge ought to have been allowed and they ought to have been discharged. 3. Learned AGA on the other hand resisted the request that has been made on behalf of applicants by contending that investigation in question has been carried out and based on the evidence collected, charge sheet in question has been filed and thereafter applicants have been summoned and then they moved an application for discharge, and on the basis of evidence available, no case for discharge has been made out and accordingly said application in question has rightly been rejected. 4. Order in question clearly proceeds to make a mention that accused persons namely Constable Chhote Lal Sonkar, Constable Surendra Singh alongwith Head Constable Indradev Singh, in reference of Harishankar Singh, accused of Case Crime No. 21 of 1986 under Sections 307 and 411 IPC read with Section 25 of Indian Arms Act, as he had surrendered in the court of ACJM, Gorakhpur based on 'B' warrant, he was to be taken from Gorakhpur Jail to Azamgarh Jail and in order to extend benefit to accused person, they reached late accordingly remand in question could not be made and thereafter without lodging the accused Harishankar to Police Station-Kotwali, straight away they reached Jail wherein in absence of valid warrant he could not be lodged in jail then colluding with accused Harishankar, they got his medical examination done and got admitted him in the hospital. In this background investigation in question has been carried out, and charge sheet in question has been submitted. 5. In this background investigation in question has been carried out, and charge sheet in question has been submitted. 5. The Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Court No. 5, Gorakhpur has clearly proceeded to mention that whatever grievance has been raised same would be considered at the point of time of trial. Once prima facie there is substantial evidence to take up the applicants for facing trial then their discharge has rightly been rejected in the facts of the case. Based on delay, discharge application in question, could not have been allowed. 6. Once there is no abuse of process of law, then present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.