Revision against summons under S.319 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Court held prima facie case exists. Bail may be considered if prosecuted surrenders within 30 days; no coercive action in interim.
Prayer for quashing dismissed. Bail consideration contingent on surrender within 30 days.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2393 of 2019
Revisionist :- Puranmasi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Naveen Kumar Yadav,Anand Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Gorakhpur on the application filed by opposite party no. 2, under section 319 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 197 of 2017 (State Vs. Jitendra Nishad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 518 of 2016, under section 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur by which the learned court below illegally and arbitrarily summoned the revisionists for facing trial of S.T. No. 197 of 2017 (State Vs. Jitendra Nishad).
The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that no offence against the revisionists 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.
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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the revisionists appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided (if possible on same day) 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 revisionists. 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 revisionists is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 19.6.2019 Arti
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the summons of the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was illegal and arbitrary.
Whether prima facie offence is made out against the revisionists.
Whether bail application of the revisionists should be considered upon surrender.
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, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Puranmasi
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
