Court No. - 44
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8214 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ajeet Pandey @ Sonu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for exempting the certified copy of order dated 04.09.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, III, Sonbhadra issuing the processes under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on the application of Investigation Officer in Case Crime No. 265 of 2018 under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act at Police Station-Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no offence against the petitioner 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 petitioner. 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. Moreover, the petitioner has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or /228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer made in the aforementioned case is refused.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A., this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner appears and surrenders before the Courts below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his bail application shall be considered and decided by both the courts below expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor in the aforesaid crime number for the aforesaid offence.
It is made clear that no further time would be allowed beyond above-mentioned 30 days on any ground.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Sumit S