Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 617 of 2019 Appellant :- Maharaj Singh And 5 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is to the satisfaction of the Court.
Delay is condoned. This application stands allowed.
Order on appeal Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed challenging the charge sheet no.30 dated 5.10.2016 and cognizance order dated 31.1.2017 in Special Trial no.9 of 2017(State Vs.Mahraj Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.472 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506, 325, 336, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Karhal, district Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that no offence is made out against the appellants and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court.
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 the appellants. 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the appellants have got right of discharge under Sections 227, 239, 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weight the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right against summoning order to file a discharge application before the trial court raising all the grounds/grievances which have been taken in this application or which may have been taken, the trial court shall decide the discharge application within six weeks from its filing by passing a speaking and detailed order.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the appellants appear and surrender before the court below within ten days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in the light of the 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. in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
For a period of ten days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants. However, in case, the appellants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Mini