Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 401 of 2018 Revisionist :- Bhoop Singh And 3 Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Gagan Mehta,Sushil Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,M.C. Maurya,Shivajee Srivastava
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application.
Heard Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.C. Mauraya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State.
As per report of the stamp reporter dated 28.5.2018, the present revision is beyond time by 8 days.
The grounds mentioned in the delay condonation application are found to be sufficient. The delay in filing the present revision is condoned.
The present delay condonation application stands allowed.
Office is directed to allot a regular number to the present revision.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Neeraj
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 401 of 2018 Revisionist :- Bhoop Singh And 3 Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Gagan Mehta,Sushil Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,M.C. Maurya,Shivajee Srivastava
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Order in the Memo of Revision.
Heard Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.C. Mauraya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 15.2.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No.427 of 2016 (State Vs. Pappu alias Prem Das and others) arising out of Case Crime No.486 of 2015, under Section 302, 34, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Jaithara, District Etah.
Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist no.1 and 3 have already been arrested and sent to jail.
In view of the same the present revision on their behalf stands dismissed as infructuous.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed this revision on behalf of revisionist no.2 and 4.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionists have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without there being any legal evidence against them.
On the other hand, learned AGA have opposed for quashing of the impugned order.
I have gone through the memo of revision and the affidavit filed in support of this revision, as well as the impugned order and I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity requiring any interference by this Court. The learned Trial Court after noticing that there was legally admissible evidence on record indicating at the complicity of the revisionist in the commission of the aforesaid offence, summoned the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
However, it is directed that if the revisionists appear and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
The Court below while considering the prayer for bail shall consider the aforesaid fact.
It is made clear that if the revisionists do not appear before the trial court within the aforesaid period, the court below will at liberty to take coercive action against them.
With the aforesaid observations, the revision stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Neeraj