Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5160 of 2018 Applicant :- Mayank Babu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with the prayer to quash/set the Charge Sheet No. A-31 of 2016 registered as S.P. No. 39 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Mayank Babu Nishad) arising out of Case Crime No. 303 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Ajitmal, District Auraiya.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the FIR one Annu Yadav along with one another are alleged to have beaten the first informant with fists and kicks and also, had used abusing language indicating his caste. Subsequently the police has exonerated Annu Yadav and the present accused-applicant whose name was not in the FIR, has been made accused. In statement of complainant, he has clearly stated that he did not know Mayank Babu Nishad. The other witness Suneel Kumar stated that no mar-peet took place or abusing language was used in occurrence. The other witness Vipin stated that altercation happened from both the sides and at that time Annu Yadav was not present there. Witness Jagat Narayan stated that the first informant and Mayank Babu Nishad were involved in argument with each other. No injury has been found on the person of the first informant. In these circumstances, the accused has been falsely implicated.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
In view of above argument made by learned counsel for the applicant, he may approach the court below for getting himself discharged under appropriate provisions. In proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the evaluation of evidence on record collected by I.O. may not be made. Hence, no case of quashing the charge sheet is made out; relief for quashing the charge sheet is, accordingly, refused.
The accused may approach the court below for seeking discharge under appropriate provision.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 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 applicant do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 A.P. Pandey