Court No. - 68
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4620 of 2019 Petitioner :- Madan Baghel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ravindra Kumar
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 03.05.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, District-Agra in Criminal Revision No. 487 of 2018 (Madan Baghel Vs. State of U.P. and another) dismissing the revision against the order dated 06.09.2018 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Complaint Case No. 265 of 2015 (Moolchandra Vs. Ramhet Baghel and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., PS Aitmadpur, District-Agra.
Vide order dated 06.09.2018 applicants Madan Baghel and co-accused Ramhet Baghel have been summoned in aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that opposite party no.2 Moolchandra has filed his complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicant due to enmity. Opposite party no.2 /complainant Moolchandra has not supported the version of complaint in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
Learned counsel for the applicant could not show any abuse of process of trial Court. Impugned order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate is based on substance. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicant 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 applicant files his 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.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is further directed that if applicant applies for discharge at the appropriate stage, the same shall be decided by the trial court expeditiously on merit by a speaking order.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 AKT