Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20022 of 2018
Applicant :- Charan @ Ramcharan Yadav And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sagar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.5.2018 issuing non- bailable warrant by the Special Judge,SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Gyanpur-Bhadohi in S.T. No. 114 of 2016 (State Vs.Charan alias Ramcharan Yadav and others) arising out of case crime No. 23 of 2016, under Section 323/325/504 IPC & 3(1) X of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Gyanpur, district Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi).
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power 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, AIR 1960 SC 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 order impugned is refused.
However, it is provided that in case, the applicants appear/surrender before the concerned court below within a period of 15 days from today and move appropriate applications for bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the observations made by this Court in Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P reported in 2005(1) AWC 416 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. provided there is no legal impediment in deciding the same.
For a period of 40 days from today or till the application for bail is disposed of, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
It is being made clear that this indulgence is for a fixed period only and no further extension shall be granted to the applicants for taking steps as aforesaid.
With these observations, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 sfa/ (Jayant Banerji, J)