Court No. - 3
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22520 of 2019 Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge,/Special Judge, Chandauli, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2018, arising out of Complaint Case No. 713 of 2017 (Smt. Savita vs. Mahendra Kumar), under Section 494 I.P.C., Police Station Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli, whereby the learned appellate court after rejecting the exemption application of the applicant has directed him to surrender before the court by 25.05.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was convicted for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. and against the conviction and sentence he has filed appeal before the learned appellate court. It has further been submitted that on being convicted, the trial court released him on interim bail, thereafter, the applicant has filed an appeal along with an application for grant of bail, which is still pending.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order.
It is pertinent to mention here that the impugned judgment which has been challenged before the learned appellate court was passed on 08.10.2018 and if on the same date, the interim bail was accepted by the learned Magistrate, it can be assumed that till 07.05.2019, the applicant was validly out of jail. During that period, he must have get his bail application disposed of or he must have surrender before the court. Now the impugned order was passed on 07.05.2019. It appears that without any order of bail, the applicant was out from jail and he was never taken into custody. Therefore, when he gave an application for exemption, the learned appellate court has very rightly rejected the same and directed the applicant to surrender before the court and only thereafter, the bail application of the applicant could have been heard. It appears that the applicant has not complied with the impugned order and has rushed to this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the above factual matrix, it appears that the impugned order passed by learned appellate court was totally justified and it was incumbent for the applicant to surrender before the court. Hence, there is no ground for interference in the impugned order by invoking the authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
However, it is observed that if the applicant surrenders before the learned appellate court within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the learned appellate court after taking the applicant into custody, proceed to dispose of his bail application expeditiously, preferably on the same day.
With the above observation, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019 sailesh