Court No. - 2
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22481 of 2019 Applicant :- Munna @ Ramesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.V. Pandey,Yogesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned notice dated 28.2.2019 under section 111 Cr.P.C. issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Belthra Road, District Balli in Case No.58 of 2019 (State vs. Munna @ Ramesh Yadav) under section 110G Cr.P.C. Police Station Ubhawn, District Ballia pending in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Belthra Road, District Ballia and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the notice issued under section 110 G Cr.P.C to the applicant is on a cyclostyle proforma which contains general allegation and no specific allegation has been incorporated in the said notice stating as to on what basis he is being compelled to show cause as to why he should not be directed to file personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds for maintaining the piece in society for three years. It is further argue that no subjective satisfaction has been shown by the Up Zila Magistrate, Belthra in the said notice, simply a reference of one case crime no. 5 of 2018 under section 354 IPC, has been made in which the accused is on bail. How it is being considered by the said Magistrate that the applicant would be a threat to the society, is not disclosed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned notice.
I have gone through the impugned order but the same is not found to be on proforma, in fact, a detailed order containing two paragraphs has been passed by the said Magistrate directing the applicant to appear before it to show as to why the bail bonds and surety bonds should not be taken from him. The applicant should appear before the Magistrate and show the reason why he should not be asked to fill up the personal bonds and surety bonds. No prejudice appears to have been caused at this stage when simply cause has been directed to be shown by the applicant before the learned Magistrate, hence at this stage, no interference is required.
The application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.6.2019 AU