Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Singh Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 September, 2019
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34376 of 2019 Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Dubey,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to delete opposite parties no. 2 and 3 from the array of parties during the course of the day.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the request to quash the order dated 18.09.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jalaun at Orai, District jalaun, in S.T. No. 45 of 2017 (State vs. Shishupal Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 682 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kalpi, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lanaun at Orai, District Jalaun.
The case of the applicants before the learned trial court was that they have have moved applications (Annexure No. 5 to the application) before the learned trial court mentioning therein that they have savings accounts in Allahabad Bank at Kalpi Branch in which they have money. They are in need of money, therefore, they should be sent to the concerned bank in police custody for withdrawal of money. It has further been stated that no cheque book has been issued to them by the Bank even though they have moved the applications to the Bank. The learned trial court by a very sketchy order (Annexure No. 1 to the application) has rejected the applications of the applicant by passing the following order :-
"Heard.
No provision is shown in support of applicant. Rejected."
From perusal of the applications moved by the applicants before the trial court (Annexure No. 5 to the application), it is clear that in the said applications, they have not mentioned any ground for withdrawing the money from their accounts. When the applicants are in jail, they must show some reasons in the application to convince the court below but the same was missing in the applications. At the same time, learned court below has passed the aforesaid order in the absence of any reason mentioned therein.
It is not always necessary to require from applicants to show provision for anything or everything. It is within the discretionary command and judicious approach of the courts to consider such type of applications and considering the need of the applicant, pass a suitable order. The impugned order which is enough sketchy and has been passed without assigning any reason.
In view of aforesaid discussions, the application is disposed of finally with observation that if the applicants file fresh applications mentioning the reasons therein for withdrawal of money from their accounts, the learned trial court after considering the genuineness of need of the applicants, shall pass a suitable order without being influenced by the earlier order passed by it.
Order Date :- 19.9.2019 sailesh