Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2861 of 2018 Revisionist :- Baij Nath And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Randhir Jain,Sandeep Kumar Keshari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
Present revision has been filed against the order dated 24.7.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in S.T. No.26 of 2013 (State Vs. Vijaydhar Pal and others) by which the revisionists have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the offence alleged under Sections 304, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Aurai, district Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that though the revisionists had been named in the FIR, they were not nominated in the charge sheet since the police investigation had not resulted in any material being found against them. It is then stated that after five years the revisionists have been summoned only on account of pending dispute between the parties being Complaint Case No.379 of 2012 (Vijaydhar Pal Vs. Chandra Shekhar Dubey) wherein the revisionists are the eye witnesses appearing in support of allegation made by Vijaydhar Pal against the opposite party no.2., namely, Chandra Shekhar Dubey. Certain documents pertaining to that case have also been annexed in support of the present revision. It is then submitted that in any case, the revisionist no.1 is 82 years of age and he has been falsely implicated.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that at this stage, it cannot be said that the testimony that has been received by the trial court is false, inasmuch as, the revisionists have yet to appear before the trial court and are yet to cross examine the witnesses who have testified against the revisionists.
As to the age of the revisionists, it has been submitted that the same could remain a factor to be considered by the trial court and no pre-trial can be heard even on that count.
Having considered the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, at present the revisionists have been summoned on the basis of eye witnesses account rendered by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 wherein they appear to have made specific allegation against the revisionists, the learned court below having taken note of the same and has thereafter summoned the revisionists at this stage.
Without making any observation as to the merits of the case or the evidence, this much is clear at present specific evidence has been received by the trial court on the basis of which revisionists have been summoned. However, the age of the revisionist no.1 would remain a matter to be considered by the trial court while considering the bail application of that revisionist.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the revisionists appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided 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.
With the aforesaid directions, the revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.8.2018 Meenu