Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet No.01 of 2020, dated 17.07.2020, vide Case Crime No. 209 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427, 325, 308 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich and order of cognizance and summoning order dated 19.8.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No. 8242 of 2020, State vs. Anas and others as well as all proceedings of the case.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the F.I.R. in the instant case has been filed with malafide intention and no offence as stated in the F.I.R. has been committed by the petitioners.
It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case without investigating the case properly has submitted a charge sheet and the concerned Magistrate without going into the depth of the matter has summoned the petitioners in a cursory way.
It is further submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the charge sheet as well as the summoning order whereby the petitioners were summoned be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
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 petitioners. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the Court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from today or till the petitioners surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 28.1.2021 Madhu