Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
The instant petition has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.59 of 2021 (State v. Rajiv Shukla & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.53/2020, under Section 427/506 I.P.C., Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow as well as impugned summoning order dated 20.01.2021 pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIIIth, Court no.32, Lucknow and charge-sheet dated 18.10.2020.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid First Information Report and the Investigating Officer without investigating the case in right perspective has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has also committed a manifest illegality in taking the cognizance of the offence and issuing the process against the applicants, while it was evident that there is no sufficient material against the applicant.
It is further submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicants is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the entire proceedings of criminal case, charge sheet as well as the summoning order, whereby the applicants were summoned, be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicants 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 applicant. 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 entire proceedings of criminal case, charge sheet as well as the summoning order 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 view of above decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial court that if applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
It is further provided that after obtaining regular bail, the applicants may move an application for their discharge before the trial court and the trial court would be under an obligation to dispose of that application after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties within 30 days thereafter.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Anupam S/-