Allahabad High Court
Bachau Lal Yadav vs State Of Up And Another on 11 September, 2019
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32792 of 2019 Applicant :- Bachau Lal Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Chandauli, by which bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant as well as to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1070/15 arising out of Case Crime No. 37/13, under sections 143, 147, 337, 338, 332, 353, 427, 186, 323, 504, 506, 325/34 read with section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Sakaldiha, District Chandauli, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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 Supreme Court in 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 and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the bailable-warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Arti