Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5015 of 2018 Petitioner :- Saleem And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The petitioners are co-accused in the same case relating to same Case Crime No.90 of 2018 under Sections 269, 290, 291 I.P.C. and Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act Police Station Najibabad district Bijnor in which the other co-accused filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3998 of 2018 where another Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F. I. R. dated 07.2.2018 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 90 of 2018, under Sections-269, 290, 291 IPC and Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, police station Najibabad, district Bijnor so far it relates to the petitioners.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated on account of political animosity with regard to election of Gram Pradhan and nothing has been recovered from the petitioners. It is contended that whatever recovery has been made, it has been made from the house of Saleem. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the F. I. R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, no credible evidence is forthcoming, even prima facie, indicating that any such incident had taken place, hence the impugned F. I. R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A. G. A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned F. I. R. it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F. I. R. is not liable to be quashed.
From the perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein prima facie cognizable offence is made out hence, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned F. I. R.
Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F. I. R. is refused.
However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and nature of allegations made in the F. I. R., it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) or till credible evidence is collected, whichever is earlier.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally."
Learned counsel submits that the petitioners also deserves the same relief.
We have gone through the contents of the first information report and the statement made as also the contents of the order referred hereinabove and we find that the Court has declined to quash the first information report. We entirely agree with the same and in the event the petitioners approach the court below for grant of bail the same shall be considered keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ, 332(SC) and Amarwati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004
(57) ALR, 290.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the said observation.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 R./