Single judge held that applicants willing to surrender should be granted bail. Court directed surrender within one month and forbade coercive action during that period.
Directed applicants to surrender and apply for bail within one month. No coercive action pending during this period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35482 of 2018
Applicant :- Nar Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing and chargesheet dated 02.07.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of ST No. 17 of 2018, State Vs. Shailendra and Others arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2017, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Aata, District Jalaun at Orai, pending in the court of Additional District Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant criminal proceedings have been instituted by the opposite party no. 2 as a counterblast to the criminal proceedings in regard to the same incident which was instituted by the applicants against the opposite party no. 2.
Perusal of the charge-sheet as well as the material collected in the course of investigation clearly disclose the commission of the offences. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence or judge the disputed defence of the accused. At this stage, the validity of the charge-sheet can be tested only by determining whether a prima facie commission of an offence is disclosed.
The aforesaid limits of the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been long settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court. There is good authority in the law to fortify the said propositions. Reference can be made with profit in this regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of 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 . No ground for interference in the charge-sheet is made out.
Faced with the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant are willing to surrender before the court below and he recasts his relief accordingly. He does not press for the reliefs sought for in the instant application.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within one months from today and apply for bail. The bail application of the applicant shall be considered and decided in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2004 (57) ALR 290 and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of one months from today or till the date the applicants surrender before the trial court whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, the Trial Court shall proceed against the applicants in accordance with law and this interim protection shall stand recalled automatically.
With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.10.2018 Dhananjai
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow bail to applicants willing to surrender in FIR cases under IPC and SC/ST Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶12
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶12
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nar Singh And 4 Others
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
