Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7629 of 2019 Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Sri Lalit Kumar Misra for the petitioners and Sri J.K. Upadhyay for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"i-issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to not arrest the petitioners in criminal case in case crime no.299 of 1997, under Sections 302, 307, 427 I.P.C. and under Section 3(2) (5), SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Dataganj District Badaun in the interest of justice.
ii-issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the police of police station Dataganj to not take any coercive action against the petitioners and also provide some time to the petitioners in respect of search the accused Jugal Kishore @ Pappu produced before learned court below in the interest of justice.
iii-issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv- award cost of the petition to the petitioners."
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 took surety of one Jugal Kishore @ Pappu who was one of the convicted accused in Case Crime No. 299 of 1997 under Sections 302, 307, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Dataganj District Badaun. His appeal was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed vide judgement and order dated 17.9.2018 and the bail bonds were ordered to be cancelled. It is argued that since the said accused did not appear before the court concerned and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 stood as surety, the police is harassing them and as such their arrest be stayed.
Per contra, State counsel opposed the prayer of the writ petition and argued that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are not accused in Case Crime No. 299 of 1997. They stood as surety of one of the accused in the said matter and since accused failed to appear before the court concerned after securing bail, petitioners were liable for proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that petition is highly misconceived and the prayers as prayed are also totally misconceived and are in no manner concerned with the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further argued that in so far as the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he is totally unconnected with the matter and his apprehension of arrest is totally baseless and without any justification.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not accused in Case Crime No. 299 of 1997. They stood as surety of one of the accused and on account of default committed by the said accused in not appearing before the court concerned, would have a liability on the said petitioners under various provisions of law as they were surety and they do not apprehend their arrest in Case Crime No. 299 of 1997. Their apprehension that the police is troubling and threatening them for arrest in Case Crime No. 299 of 1997 is wholly misconceived. The apprehension of the petitioner No. 3 is also without any substance.
The petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
If petitioners have any grievance, they can avail any other remedy available to them as advised under the law.
Order Date :- 5.4.2021 SK