The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.2/2019 dated 07.01.2019, summoning order dated 17.04.2019 as well as entire proceeding arising out of Case Crime No.449/2018 under Sections 2/3 Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Inayat Nagar, District- Ayodhya.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. in the instant case has been filed with malafide intention on the basis of false and fabricated facts and applicants have not committed any such offence and have no criminal history.
It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case without investigating the case properly and not considering the actual position of land and only believing the report of Lekhpal submitted the charge sheet on the basis of false and fabricated facts.
It is further submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicants is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the charge sheet as well as the summoning order, whereby the applicants were summoned be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicants on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
For a period of aforesaid 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Gaurav/-