Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43023 of 2018 Applicant :- Surendra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma and Sri Lavesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 405/2014 (State vs. Harivilas and others), whereby applicants Surendra and Maniram were summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 325 I.P.C. Police Station- Pinahat, District- Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicants relying on the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by this court in application u/s 482 No.- 17917 of 2018 (Mukesh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Birendra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 LawSuit(SC) 484 contended that there must be strong evidence to summoned the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In this case Pramod was injured witness who had not been examined till now. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution version even so, learned trial court has passed the impugned order which is not sustainable. He further contended that all other co-accused are enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
In order dated 28.05.2018 passed by this court in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17917 of 2018 (Mukesh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) reliance has been placed on the judment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Birendra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) . In Birendra Singh case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
" This record was before the trial court. Notwithstanding the same, the trial court went by the deposition of complainant and some other persons in their examination-in-chief, with no other material to support their so-called verbal/ocular version. Thus, the 'evidence' recorded during trial was nothing more than the statements which was already there under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of the case. No doubt, the trial court would be competent to exercise its power even on the basis of such statements recorded before it in examination-in-chief. However, in a case like the present where plethora of evidence was collected by the IO during investigation which suggested otherwise, the trial court was at least duty bound to look into the same while forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether 'much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their (i.e., appellants) complicity has come on record. There is no satisfaction of this nature. even if we presume that the trial court was not apprised of the same at the time when it passed the order (as the appellants were not on the scene at that time), what is more troubling is that even when this material on record was specifically brought to the notice of the High Court in the Revision Petition filed by the appellants, the High Court too blissfully ignored the said material. Except reproducing the discussion contained in the order of the trial court and expressing agreement therewith, nothing more has been done. Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny."
In both these judgments, it was held by the court that only on the basis of strong evidence accused may be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In this particular case, F.I.R. has been lodged on the same day and applicants are named therein. Gore Lal is an eye witness who has supported the prosecution version before the court. Only because injured witness had not been examined till now, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the trial court is not based on strong evidence. As trial court has observed that there is a strong evidence against the applicants and passed the impugned order.
Accordingly, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
In result, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
However, all the records relevant for the disposal of bail application of the applicants are available with the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to decided the bail application of the applicants expeditiously, if possible on same day.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 VG..