Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24505 of 2018
Applicant :- Dharamveer Singh And Anr
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Singh Pankaj
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Sri Bharat Singh, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 which is taken on record.
The present application has been filed against the order dated 17.4.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badaun in Final Report No.341 of 2016 (Dhanpal Vs. Dharamveer and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, District Badaun by which the applicants have been summoned.
The main arguments of learned counsel for the applicants appears to be that the present applicants have a chequered history wherein the matter has been investigated and further investigated on about three occasions. The matter had also been carried to this Court on earlier occasion in criminal revision against the summoning order. On that occasion, the applicants had been summoned by taking into consideration both the material on the state case as also in the complaint case.
In so far as the present cognizance order is concerned, the order does not appear to suffer from any defect of procedure inasmuch as cognizance has been taken solely on the protest petition and the material accompanying the police report.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate has though dwelled into various facts and recorded a three pages order, however, the other material that existed in the various police reports has not been considered.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that at this stage only a prima facie view was to be formed by the Magistrate as to the commission of cognizable offence. Such prima facie view has been formed on cogent material referred to in the cognizance order itself in the shape of the statements of the injured witnesses and other witnesses. As to the material that has been sought to have been relied upon by the applicants, it has been submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly not considered the same at this stage as the same was in the shape of the opinion of a doctor, who is yet to be examined in Court.
Having considered the arguments so advanced it thus appears that present cognizance order has been passed in accordance with law.
It does not suffer from any infirmity. The present application thus lacks merit. However, no observation is being made as may be considered adverse to the applicants at subsequent stages of the trial. Further, keeping in mind that the applicant no.1 is more than 70 years of age, and is a key witness in the cross case, lodged by him against the brother of opposite party no.2 pertaining to the murder of the son-in-law of the applicant, the present application is disposed of thus:
It is directed that in case the applicants 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.
It is further emphasized that court below shall consider the age of the applicant and the fact of the cross case pending while considering the bail application.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Meenu