Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 06.04.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 34/2019 and summoning order dated 13.02.2019 passed in complaint case No. 15192/2019, under Sections 420 I.P.C., Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid complaint case and the trial court has also committed a manifest illegality in taking the cognizance of the offence and issuing the process against the petitioner while it was evident that there is no sufficient material against the petitioner.
It is further submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the petitioner are nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the complaint case as well as the summoning order whereby the petitioner was summoned be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against petitioner. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing order dated 24.07.2020 well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In view of above decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts, the petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court that if petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 15 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from today or till the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 R.C.