Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6263 of 2018 Applicant :- Uday Pratap And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Rai,Satya Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2018 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi has directed issuance of NBW against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants had filed 482 Application No. 2261 of 2016 which was disposed of on 01.09.2017 with the following observation:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present application has been moved by the applicants for quashing the proceedings of Case No.541 of 2015 (State Vs. Udai Pratap and others) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and also quashing the charge-sheet No.270 of 2015 dated 26.10.2015 in case crime no.305 of 2015, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Cant, District-Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence is made out against them. I have perused the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet.
After going through the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. Consequently, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is misconceived one and is liable to be rejected.
The Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, rejected.
However, if the applicants-Uday Pratap and Sushama Devi appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided 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 judgement 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. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them."
Admittedly, the applicant did not make compliance of the aforesaid order. It has been stated that the applicant has not complied with the order on account of acute illness of his mother for which she was hospitalised at Delhi.
Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that no documentary evidence has been annexed to support such averment.
In view of the above, no interference is called for, at this stage. The present application is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open to the applicant to establish his acute circumstances before the court below while applying for bail.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 A. Singh