Dismissed

Sita Ram Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2019A482/39316/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge refused an application to quash an order committing a case to the Sessions Court, ruling that the Magistrate could commit on the initial facts without further evidence. The court directed bail consideration on the same day and stayed coercive measures for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the impugned order dated 20.10.2016 is refused; bail to be considered on the same day; no coercive measures for 60 days.

Sita Ram Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39316 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Sita Ram Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Daya Shanker Yadav,Mahendra Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Bhadohi, in Criminal Case No. 1065 of 2014 (State v. Sita Ram Yadav and others), under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Suriyawan, District - Bhadohi. By the impugned order dated 20.10.2016, learned Magistrate had passed order to commit the case to the Court of Sessions as offence under Section 308 of IPC was also made out against the applicants.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in this case, cognizance has been taken against the applicants under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC. Without any further evidence, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of committing the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate concerned.

¶9

Section 323 of the Code reads as under :

¶10

323. Procedure when, after Commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds case should be committed . If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court......

¶11

Accordingly, the Magistrate may commit the case to the Court of Sessions at any stage if it appears to him that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions.

¶12

Although in this case, no further evidence has been adduced from the prosecution side, but on the basis of injuries sustained

¶13

by the informant, which was on his head, learned Magistrate held that offence under Section 308 of IPC is made out. The parietal bone of the injured/informant was cracked/fractured.

¶14

At the stage of cognizance, it is not essential for the Magistrate concerned to hear counsel for the prosecution/State. The impugned order has been passed after hearing the counsel for the informant. Even without any further evidence, if the Magistrate finds that the case ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions, he may commit the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶15

Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and hence, the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.10.2016 passed by learned Magistrate is hereby refused.

¶16

The applicants have already been enlarged on bail by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC.

¶17

Offence under Section 308 IPC is not punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application before the courts below, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶19

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against them.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Sita Ram Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mustaqeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Indrabhan Jain and 4 Others

Munish Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhinav Chaturvedi @ Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another