Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
By filing this 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicants have challenged the charge-sheet no. 01 of 2017, dated 09.03.2017 filed in pursuance of the First Information Report lodged at Case Crime No. 03 of 2017, under Sections 354, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi and also the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the trial court, whereby the cognizance of the offence has been taken and the process has been issued against the applicants as well as the N.B.W. order dated 18.01.2020 and the entire criminal proceedings of Spl. T. No. 31 of 2017 (State Vs. Ankit Agrahari and others) in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid First Information Report and the Investigating Officer without investigating the case properly has submitted the charge-sheet and the Magistrate concern without going into the depth of the matter in a cursory manner has taken the cognizance of the offence and issued process against the applicants.
It is further submitted that the trial court has committed patent and manifest illegality in issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicants while the summons earlier sent by the trial court and the bailable warrants issued by the trial court was never served on the applicants and in fact the applicants were not having any knowledge that any process of any nature has been issued against them by the trial court and, therefore, they have not avoided their presence in the trial court and are ready to appear before the court below.
It is next submitted that the applicants are having apprehension that as and when they will appear before the court below, they shall be taken into custody and the disposal of their bail application shall take time and having regard to the covid-19 pandemic their detention in the prison would adversely affect their health.
It is further submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicants are nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the charge sheet as well as the summoning order and N.B.W. order, whereby the applicants were summoned be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicants on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In view of above decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts, the application is disposed of with direction to the trial court that if applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
For a period of 15 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance of the impugned NBW order dated 18.01.2020.
However, it is made clear that if no bail application is moved within 15 days from today, the applicants shall not be entitled for benefit of this order and no extension of the time limit provided in this order shall be further extended on any pretext.
Order Date :- 28.1.2021 Praveen