Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6256 of 2018 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The order under challenge in the present application is dated 3.2.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1 Ghaziabad whereby he has rejected the exemption application of the applicant and issued of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and perused the record.
It transpires that the applicant who is facing trial in S.T. No. 378 of 1992 for the offences 323, 34, 307/34, 452 IPC challenged the proceedings by means of an application 482 Cr.P.C. being Application No. 4377 of 2000 in which the proceedings were stayed. However, the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution in the year 2014. However, it appears that since the order was communicated and it came in the knowledge of the Court in the year 2017 then non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. On learning about the same the applicant filed restoration application and the matter was restored. However, till the matter could be restored, non-bailable warrant was issued on 6.10.2017 by the trial judge. The said order was challenged by the applicant in an application u/s 482 No. 34364 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 3.11.2017 by the another Bench of this Court with a direction to the applicant to appear before the court below within 30 days and apply for bail which shall be decided in accordance with law and for this period the Court has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
It appears that despite aforesaid order, the applicant did not appear before the court concerned and apply for bail. Ultimately, the matter came up for final hearing on 24.1.2017 on which date the court by detailed order taking into account the evidence collected against him, dismissed the application. This order was passed by the Court after hearing both the parties. The aforesaid case which is pending for the 26 years was fixed for 2.2.2018. On that date exemption application was moved by the applicant, however the court fixed the case for 3.2.2018 for cross-examination of witness and on 3.2.2018 again exemption application was filed by the applicant. The trial judge by a very detailed order taking into account deliberate conduct of the applicant rejected the exemption application and issued non-bailable warrant against him and also fixed for 9.2.2018 and on the said date applicant again did not appear before the court and no cross examination of witness was made and then trial judge fixed 17.2.2018. On 17.2.2018 also the applicant did not turn up then court having no option but to direct the concerned S.O. to arrest the applicant and produce before the court and also passed the order under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that trial judge has committed illegality in passing the order i.e. issuing the non-bailable warrant.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or manifest error of law in issuing the non-bailable warrant dated 17.2.2018 whereby the concerned police station has been directed to arrest the applicant and produce him before the court on 3.3.2018.
The application lacks merit and is dismissed.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances as the matter is very old i.e. of 26 years, it is hereby directed that the trial judge shall adopt all possible steps against the applicant in case he does not appear by the next date fixed i.e. 3.3.2018 as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the event the applicant appears and moves an application for recall of warrant it shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.
The office is directed to sent a copy of this order to the court concerned immediately for intimation and compliance.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 AK Pandey