Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2152 of 2019 Revisionist :- Malwa @ Himanshu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 24.04.2019 in Sessions Trial No. 317 of 2018 (State Vs. Rinku & Ors.), under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, arising out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. IInd, Hapur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits, the applicants were not named in the first information report and even during investigation, their names did not crop up, therefore, no charge- sheet has been submitted against them. Subsequently, at the stage of trial, certain witnesses appear to have made motivated statements against the applicants and thus, they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thus, it has been submitted, no strong satisfaction could have been reached by the learned court below on such motivated and false testimony.
4. Opposing the present application, learned AGA would submit, though it is true that the applicants were not named in the FIR, however, during pendency of the investigation, certain applications were filed by the informant pursuant where to investigation was also transferred to the Crime Branch, when the names of the applicants were expunged from the charge- sheet.
5. At the same time, during trial, four witnesses named the present applicants as last seen with the deceased. Also, detailed account was given by them of that occurrence. It is wholly corroborated on prima facie basis. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present proceedings.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the applicants have been summoned on the basis of the testimony of four witnesses who had last seen the deceased with the applicants. Therefore, the summoning made by the learned court below of the present applicants cannot be faulted, as at this stage only, only a strong satisfaction was required to be recorded and no conclusive proof as to the involvement of the applicants was needed. While the applicants have other opportunity to disprove the correctness of the evidence, once they appear, the apprehension that they may be sent behind the bars for long, appears to be premature and misconceived, as the applicants are yet to appear before the learned court below.
7. However, in case the applicants appear before the learned court below on the next date fixed and applies for bail, the learned court below shall deal with their bail application as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Prakhar