Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
This petition has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the impugned order dated 7.1.2021 passed in Crl. Revision No.140 of 2019 Takdirun Nisa and others versus State of U.P. and others and order dated 2.9.2019 passed in complaint case No.29 of 2019 Akbaruddin Nisha vs. Mohd. Salman.
After arguing at some length, learned counsel for applicants submits that grievance of applicants would be sufficiently met in case bail application of applicants is considered expeditiously in accordance with law.
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 impugned criminal proceedings 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 applicant. 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 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 criminal proceedings 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) 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 view thereof, it is provided that if the applicants surrender before the Court below within two weeks from today and apply for bail, the Court below will consider the same, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 kkb/