Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1091 of 2019
Revisionist :- Hridayesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Shashank Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Order on Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
The present revision is stated to be beyond time of 9 days.
Ground mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application is found to be sufficient.
The delay is condoned.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Arti
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1091 of 2019
Revisionist :- Hridayesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Shashank Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the non-bailable-warrant order dated 16.10.2019 as well as order dated 07.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Farrukhabad in Case No. 149/2001, State Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta and others, under section 3/4 R.P. U.P. Act, P.S. RPF, District Kasganj wherein the discharge application of the accused revisionists has been rejected and direction to frame charges against the accused revisionists has been issued.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Arti