Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2429 of 2018
Revisionist :- Km. Rachna And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been filed against the order date 06.07.2018 passed in Session Trial No. 1016 of 2007 by the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC-13, Shahjahanpur, by which the applicants have been summoned on the basis of alleged dying declaration of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no dying declaration and that the document which has been relied upon as dying declaration is forged and fabricated document.
The defence being set up by learned counsel for the applicants, apart, at this stage, it is seen that in the impugned order, the learned court below has clearly noted that the dying declaration has been proved by the doctor. Leaving all defence open to the applicants to raise before the learned court below, no interference is warranted at this stage.
All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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.
Considering the fact that the applicants were admittedly minor on the date of alleged incident, the learned court below shall take into account this factor, while considering the bail application of the applicants.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Lbm/-