Allahabad High Court
Narendra Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 December, 2019
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45399 of 2019 Applicant :- Narendra Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh,Ranjeet Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and the Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet no. 521 of 2019 dated 7th September, 2019 and cognizance order dated 24th September, 2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 10645 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 1223 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Moradabad. The applicants also seek quashing of the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
3. Before considering the present application on merits by the Court, Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present application by submitting that this is the third application filed by the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and this is the fourth application filed by applicant no.3 Sandeep Chaudhary for more or less identical relief. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit accompanying the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it has been stated that the applicant no. 3 Sandeep Chaudhary had earlier approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1221 of 2019 (Sandeep Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Another), which has been disposed of vide order dated 25th July, 2019, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application, In paragraph-17, it has been stated that other Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 37643 of 2019 (Narendra Singh & 3 Others Vs. Sate of U.P. & Another) by the applicants, which has also been disposed of vide order dated 18th October, 2019, a copy of which is at page-70 of the paper book. In paragraph-18, it has been stated that other Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 39850 of 2019 (Narendra Singh & 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), which has also been disposed of vide order dated 7th November, 2019, a copy of which is at page-72 of the paper book. On the other hand, in paragraph-2, it has been stated that this is the First Criminal Misc. Application under Section 484 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicants before this Hon'ble Court. In view of the aforesaid, the learned A.G.A. submits that this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the other application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant no.1 being Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1221 of 2019 (Sandeep Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Another) , following order has been passed on 25th July, 2019:
"This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking direction to the lower court to dispose of bail application of the applicant on the same day, if the applicant appears in the court below and moves bail application, in Case Crime No.1223 of 2018, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Moradabad.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It appears that this matter was referred to the Mediation Centre but no agreement could be arrived at and the mediation process has failed. Matter has come up before this Court once again. Matter appears to be of a very limited scope. The prayer as has been made in the application is only this much that if the applicant appears in the court below and moves bail application, the same should be decided on the same day.
The law regarding the hearing of bail applications on the same day and all its related aspects have been comprehensively dealt with in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 which was also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). All the courts must endeavour to decide the bail applications on the same day in suitable cases, if it is possible for them to do so.
This is a matter of lower courts' discretion which they must exercise judiciously in appropriate cases.
Above mentioned Full Bench decision of this High Court and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court are binding on the lower courts. They must be followed in letter and spirit. There is no need to pass separate orders in this regard.
However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the court below within four weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail be considered and decided in the light of the above mentioned cases.
It is made clear that if the applicant does not avail of this order within stipulated period of time, no time extension application shall be entertained.
In the light of what has been observed above, the application stands disposed off."
5. In the second application filed by applicants being Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 37643 of 2019 (Narendra Singh & 3 Others Vs. Sate of U.P. & Another), following order has been passed on 18th October, 2019:
"This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 07.09.2019 and cognizance order dated 24.09.2019 in Case No. 10645 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 1223 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
At the very outset learned counsel for the applicants states that he does not want to press the prayer with regard to quashing of the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order. Submission is that applicants want to appear before the court below and get themselves bailed out and in that regard some protective direction may be given.
In the light of the submissions made by the counsel this application so far as it seeks quashing of the charge-sheet and cognizance order, stands dismissed.
However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case after surrendering in the court below an application for bail is moved on behalf of the accused within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom application has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off."
6. In the other application filed by the applicants being Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 39850 of 2019 (Narendra Singh & 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), following order has been passed on 7th November, 2019:
"This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of orders dated 03.10.2019 and 15.10.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case No.10645 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.1223 of 2018, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, whereby non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant.
Heard applicants' counsel as well as learned AGA and perused the record.
The Court does not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order under challenge and also there seem to be no abuse of court's process. There is no good ground to interfere in the same, therefore, the prayer for quashing of the impugned orders is refused.
Applicants' counsel submits that as it is being desired by the accused to obtain bail after surrendering in the court below, a protective direction may be issued to the lower court to decide the proposed bail application.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case after surrendering in the court below an application for bail is moved on behalf of the accused within three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is made clear that if this order is not availed by the accused within stipulated period of time, no time extension application shall be entertained.
It is further clarified that for the present this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off."
7. In view of false averment made in paragraph-2 of the affidavit accompanying the present application, normally this Court would have issued notices to the applicants for contempt of court, but no purpose would be served by keeping the present application pending.
8. Since the present application is third filed by applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and fourth filed by applicant no.3 for more or less identical relief, the same is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 9.12.2019 Sushil/-