Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
By filing this 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicants have prayed to set aside the entire proceedings of Session Case No.630 of 2020, under Section 354(B)/504/506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(B)(I) of S.C./S.T. Act and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki, Ram Milan Rawat Vs. Vinay Singh and other pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.45, Barabanki.
Learned counsel for the applicants made many factual submissions to demonstrate that the FIR was lodged on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the applicants and the Investigating Officer without going deep into the matter in a cursory manner has submitted the charge sheet and the court below has also taken cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and, therefore, the charge sheet, the order of the Magistrate, whereby the cognizance has been taken and process issued are bad in law and the same be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, while controverting the arguments of learned counsel for applicants submits that the arguments of learned counsel for applicants is, with regard to the factual aspects of the case which cannot be gone into by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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 the 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 prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble 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 the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for applicants and without commenting on merit and demerits of the case, the application is disposed of with direction to the trial court that if applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Saurabh