Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19635 of 2020 Applicant :- Sahab Lal Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of first informant, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has challenged the order dated 9.11.2020 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, First, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 63 of 2019 (State Vs. Sahab Lal) arising out of Case Crime No. 228 of 2018, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 313 IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) 5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Sarpataha, District- Jaunpur, by which the application for discharge has been rejected.
The only submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time of disposal of the application for discharge, he has not been heard and therefore, the order is bad in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the first informant has pointed out that in the impugned order dated 9.11.2020, it has been categorically stated that the impugned order has been passed after considering the entire material on record and hearing the counsel for the applicant, as such there is absolutely no material on record to interfere in the impugned order.
It is also to be noted that at the stage of discharge the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for 'presuming' that the accused had committed the offence :
"It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction."
"Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record. If generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime."
Having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the impugned order passed by the trial court, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and there is no abuse of process of the Court. The impugned order passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court at this stage.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 KU