Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10248 of 2018 Applicant :- Shiv Dutt Singh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing impugned order dated 9.5.2017 in Criminal Case No.276 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2009 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, P. S.Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the proceedings of Criminal Case No.276 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2009 u/s 363, 366, 376 IPC, P. S. Dhoomanganj, District-Allahabad was challenged in Application u/s 482 Cr. P. C.No.24684 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court on 4.8.2010 with a direction to the applicants to move the discharge application which was to be considered and disposed of by the Courts below. Pursuant thereto an application was moved before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which has now been rejected by the learned Magistrate. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order on the discharge application, inasmuch as, the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
However, it appears that on account of the directions given by this Court in the aforesaid Application u/s 482 No.24684 of 2010, the Magistrate concerned was left with no option but to pass an order on the same. Without entering into the illegality or otherwise of the order passed by the Magistrate, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants ought to have moved the discharge application after committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.
The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.
However, besides this it appears that the applicants had not even obtained bail and moved the discharge application, which remained pending for the past more than 8 years. I hereby direct the applicants to appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided on same day in view of the settled 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
In case, the applicants do not appear and surrender before the Court below within the aforesaid period, the concerned Court below will have the liberty to take all the coercive actions against them in accordance with law.
It is made clear that if this order is not availed by the accused within stipulated period of time, no time extension application shall be entertained.
The trial of this case is pending since 2009. As such, it is further directed that the trial Court concerned shall make full endeavour to expeditiously decide the aforesaid case within a period of six months from today, by hearing the case on day to day basis and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Manish Himwan