By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged the summoning order dated 10.10.2005 passed by C.J.M. Gonda in case no. 3634 of 2003 under sections 304-B/504/506/316 I.P.C. and u/s 3/4 of D.P. Act A criminal revision no. 465 of 2005 has also been preferred by the petitioners against the summoning order dated 10.10.2005.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially the F.I.R. was registered under section 498-A, 304-B and 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act on the basis of an application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and during the pendency of F.I.R. another complainat case was filed against the petitioners under section 304-B, 316, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. It is further submitted that there was no occasion for filing the second complaint. The petitioners have already obtained bail in the earlier case. It is further argued that ingredients of section 304-B I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioners.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any ground for interference at this stage.
So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the ingredients of offence under section 304-B is concerned, it is open for the petitioners to raise all these points at the time of framing of charge, if the charges have not already been framed.
However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioners move an application for surrender before the court concerned within thirty days from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for the appearance of the petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioners in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2004 (57) ALR 290, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, 2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC) and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit.
In case the petitioners fail to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for canceling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.11.2010 o.k.