Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3064 of 2018 Revisionist :- Golu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 7.7.2018 passed by Session Judge, Ballia, in Session Trial No. 204 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Pintu Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2017, under Sections 302, 452, 323, 383, 427, 352 IPC, Police Station Dubahar, District Ballia.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly states that in the case of co- accused Vikas Pratap Singh @ Sonu Singh and others who had been similarly summoned by the impugned order. This Court has already disposed of Criminal Revision No. 2527 of 2018 vide its order dated 3.8.2018 on the following terms:-
"Sri Devottam Pandey, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ballia by which the revisionists have been summoned under Section 319 in S.T. No.204 of 2017 (State Vs. Pintu Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.259 of 2017, under Sections 302, 452, 323, 383, 427, 352 IPC, P.S. Dubhar, District Ballia.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that for the purposes of summoning a person as an accused, the learned court below was required to record its strong satisfaction of a degree higher than that required for the purposes of taking cognizance. In this regard reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon. Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR (2014) 3 SCC 1400 as has been explained in the subsequent decision in the case of Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (7) SCC 706.
Relying on the above principle, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that in the present case, the court below has only recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the revisionists were involved in the commission of offence as alleged.
Sri Nagendra Singh, learned A.G.A. on the other hand has submitted that before making the aforesaid observation, the court below has dealt with the testimony of three prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Rajendra Prasad, P.W.2 Ashok Kumar and P.W.3 Ganga Sagar who have consistently stated that the revisionists were also involved in the incident.
Having considered the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it thus appears that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, though the court below has not expressed in so many words that strong satisfaction as is required in view of the two decisions of the Apex Court noted above, however in the substance the court below has considered the material that was existing and thereafter recorded its conclusion.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionists, it is directed that in case the revisionists appear before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive measure shall be taken against the revisionists in the aforesaid case.
With the above directions, this application is disposed of finally."
Having considered the above prayer, the present criminal revision is disposed of on the same terms and conditions.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Mini