Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37751 of 2013 Applicant :- Keshav Dev And 4 Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
None is appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, however even notice could not be issued by the office till date which is evident from the perusal of the order sheet.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to direct the cour below to consider the Bail same day of the applicants in Case No. 3221 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime No. 125 of 2004, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 324, 307, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Jawan, District Aligarh.
It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants that the trial court may be directed to consider the bail application on the same day. In this regard, when a query was made as to under which provision such kind of prayer is maintainable, he could not convince the court.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the grant of prayer by stating that this is a gross misuse of process of court because accused is taking shelter of the pendency of this application before this Court and is not appearing before the trial court for getting himself bailed out nor has he allowed the trial court to proceed so far, hence this application u/s 482 should be dismissed outright.
Perused the order of the court dated 24.10.2013, which is passed in this case. It is evident that even at that time, it was noticed that from the side of applicant injury memos were not presented, which have been subsequently brought on record through Supplementary Affidavit. The injury memos, which have been annexed are not legible, hence the same cannot be read by this Court. The prayer made in this application is not maintainable at all. In view of above, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed solely on the ground of its non- maintainability.
Office is directed to send a communication to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law forthwith without any further delay as already it appears that charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2004 and until now no proceedings appears to have taken place because of the pendency of this application despite the fact that no stay order was granted in favour of the accused. Let this case be decided expeditiously by the trial court.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial court within a week for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 A.P. Pandey