Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 719 of 2019
Appellant :- Sandeep Kumar Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwaini Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Orders on Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation No.01 of 2019
Heard.
Cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.
Orders of Memo of Appeal
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed against the Charge Sheet No.01 filed before the court below on 28.02.2018 and cognizance taken by the court below on 26.10.2018 by the Special Magistrate SC/ST Act, 1989, under Sections 504, 506, 427, 452 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, in Sessions Trial No.230 of 2018 in Case Crime No.728 of 2017 (State Vs. Sandeep Kumar Mishra), pending in the court of Special Magistrate SC/ST Act, 1989, District Varanasi, whereby appellant has been summoned in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no offence is made out against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
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 the appellant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in 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 and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got right of discharge under Sections 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding as well as order dated 26.10.2018 is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the appellant appears and surrenders before the court below within four weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in the light of the law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
For a period of eight weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant. However, in case, the appellant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 R./