Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14491 of 2018 Applicant :- Manish Mishra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Tripathi,Anubhav Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Raj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vishwajyoti Sahai, learned AGA alongwith Sri Mayank Awasthi appearing for the State.
This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet which was submitted by the police against the applicants under Sections 354, 452, 323, 504, 325 IPC, PS Shahjahanpur, District Jhansi which was registered as Case No.665 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.132 of 2017 (State Vs. Manish Mishra & Ors.).
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been implicated in this case on account of a counter blast where the applicants had earlier lodged an FIR giving rise to Case Crime No.146 of 2017, under Sections 354, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS Shahjahanpur, District Jhansi. It is pointed out that a charge sheet has been submitted in the case aforesaid brought by the applicants on an Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.13422 of 2018 in which notices have been issued and interim order directing no coercive measures to be taken against the applicants till the next date of listing has been granted.
Learned AGA has opposed the motion to admit this application to hearing and pointed out that the two incidents are different. In the present case there are injuries including a fracture sustained by one Manish Kushwaha. Thus, it cannot be said that there are no materials in the case diary. It may further be observed that Case Crime No.146 of 2017 is subsequent in point of time, which is a crime registered on 18.11.2017, whereas the charge sheet giving rise to the present crime was registered on 03.10.2017. In this sequence of events, the impugned proceedings can never be a counter-blast to the prosecution arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2017 in relation to which an interim order has been passed by this Court.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances no case for quashing the charge sheet is made out and the prayer for quashing the same is, therefore, refused.
It is however, provided that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Shahroz