Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5023 of 2018 Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sikandar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sikandar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Saghir Ahmad, the learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23303 of 2017 Gyanendra @ Gyani Vs. State of U.P. and two others. The said order is extracted herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the F. I. R. dated 14.04.2017 which has been registered as Case Crime No.299 of 2017, under Section 394 IPC, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.
From the perusal of the F. I. R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference with the F. I. R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F. I. R. is refused.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, if possible, on the same day by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr. L. J. 755 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.
With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally."
Admittedly, the offence alleged against the petitioners is said to be under section 394 of I.P.C., as such the same falls in the category of a heinous offence. Prima facie, we are of the view that no sympathy is required by a Court of equity jurisdiction in favour of such petitioners, who have been charged for an offence punishable under section 394 I.P.C. We are, therefore, not persuaded to agree to the proposition as enumerated in the order noted herein above keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court in a later decision in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC Paras 11 and 12.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we provide that in case, the petitioners apply for bail, the same shall be considered by the Court concerned in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 HSM