Allahabad High Court
Sachin Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8123 of 2021 Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhruve Chandra Sharma,Manoj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Manoj Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 18.1.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad, in S.T. No. 443 of 2018 (State Vs. Rahul) under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Kavi Nagar, whereby application (Paper No. 11 Kha) under Section 319 Cr. P. C. filed by first informant/ opposite party 2 has been allowed and consequently, applicant has been summoned in above mentioned case under Sections 307/34 IPC to face trial. Apart from above, subsequent order dated 9.2.2021 passed by Court below has also been challenged, whereby bailable warrant has been issued against applicant.
At the very out, learned A.G.A. contends that order impugned in this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been passed by Court below after complying with the mandate of law laid down by Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92. Admittedly P.W. 1 Govinda and P.W. 2 Shiva have been examined by Court below. In their statement-in-chief they have clearly implicated the present applicant. Consequently, no infirmity or illegality has been committed by Court below in passing order dated 18.1.2020, on the basis of aforesaid.
In oppoisition to the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A., learned counsel for applicant contends that statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are not reliable as there are serious contradictions in the same.
Ground urged by learned counsel for applicant can be raised at the time of cross examination of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Though, this Court is a superior Court, dictactes of prudence require that this Court should not evaluate the evidence which has come during the course of trial, as same is in exclusive domain of Trial Court.
In view of above, no occasion arises before this C to entertain this application.
Accordingly, prayer for quashing order dated 18.1.2020 is refused.
However, it is provided that if applicant appears and surrenders before court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, court below shall consider and decide bail application of applicant as per law laid by this Court in Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290 and Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151 as well as, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of application for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant.
However, in case, applicant does not appear before court below within aforesaid period, Court below shall be free to proceed against applicant.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021 HSM