Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45295 of 2018 Applicant :- Dinesh Sahani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of the instant 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant sought prayer for quashing the charge sheet dated 19.06.2016 and N.B.W. order dated 10.04.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 269 of 2016 (State Vs. Ramlalit and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. & Section 3 (1) (10) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/Fast Tract Court No.1, Maharajganj.
But at the outset learned counsel has categorically submitted that he does not want to press the above prayer to that extent only or address the court on merits of the case and accordingly, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands dismissed.
The only prayer sought by the learned counsel for the applicant is that a direction may be given to learned courts below to decide the bail application expeditiously, and the learned court below may be directed not to issue coercive measure to procure the attendance of the applicant on his solemn undertaking by the learned counsel for the applicant that his client is keen and willing to cooperate and participate in the trial.
This Court directs that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Special Session Trial No. 269 of 2016 (State Vs. Ramlalit and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2016, under Sections147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. & Section 3 (1) (10) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.
Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/Fast Tract Court No.1, Maharajganj for a period of 45 days from today.
During this period in the event the bail application is moved by the applicant, the courts below is directed to deal and decide in accordance with law in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr. L. J. 755 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, this application is finally disposed of.
It is made clear that no further time would be granted beyond 45 days in any case for this purpose.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Ashok Gupta