Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21601 of 2019 Applicant :- Hardeo And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the applicants against the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2019 against the summoning order dated 14.02.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No.
579 of 2018 (Bhullu Vs. Hardev and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicant no. 1 Hardeo has lodged report of non-cognizable offence against opposite party no.2 Bhullu in which after investigation police has submitted charge sheet. In counter blast opposite party no.2 Bhullu filed his complaint maliciously with false allegations. Opposite party no. 2 Bhullu has not specified time of occurrence. As per version of the complaint nine persons entered into the residence of complainant/opposite party no.2 Bhullu and assaulted him. Even so, no one from the side of opposite party No. 2 has either been medically examined or has sustained injury. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the applicants to get themselves discharge from the court concerned.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants 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 others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, 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.
It is further directed that if applicants apply for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.
Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants.
However, if the applicant Nos. 2 to 9 apply before the concerned Magistrate to exempt their appearance through counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the same shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate, sympathetically.
With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 AKT