Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10305 of 2018
Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Saxena
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Javed Akhtar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2017 in Case Crime No. 3275 of 2017 (State Vs. Niraj Arora and others), under Sections 3 and 4 of the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station RPF, Post Bareilly City, arising out of Case Crime No. 04 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the originally FIR has been filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, and the applicant has already been enlarged on bail for those offence. However, subsequently the charge sheet has been submitted in respect of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in addition to Sections 3 and 4 of the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act.
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 the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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, 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 and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and applies for bail, his 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.
However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Mini