Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16220 of 2019 Applicant :- Girish Kansal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bulandshahar in Criminal Complaint Case No.361 of 2019 (Swati Goyal Vs. Himanshu), under Sections 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar, whereby the application of the applicant under Section 245(2) of the Code was rejected.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order has been by the trial court without applying mind.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicants.
All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
In the impugned order, it is observed by the trial court that charge may be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
In result, the prayer for quashing the order dated 25.03.2019 in the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicant is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicant file his bail application, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Radhika