Allahabad High Court
Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. ... on 3 June, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3463 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav to set-aside/ quash the charge sheet no.1 dated 21.3.2021 filed in Special Trial No.1180/2021( State Vs. Abhishek Saroj & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 23/2021 under Sections 354, 506 IPC, Section 3(1) (Da) 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Fatanpur, District Pratapgarh and also to set aside/ quash the bailable warrant dated 22.2.2022 issued in Special Trial No. 1180/2021 by Special Judge/ POCSO Act, Pratapgarh.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that a false case has been lodged against the applicant by the informant and in fact the applicant has not committed any offence.
It is further submitted that Investigating Officer has not investigated the allegations of the FIR in right perspective and submitted the charge sheet against the applicant by making cursory investigation and the Magistrate has also taken the cognizance and issued process against the applicant without appreciating the material available on record and now the trial court has issued bailable warrants against the applicant. All the proceedings pending before the court below in the light of the above mentioned reasons are nothing but abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA on the other hand submits that neither any illegality nor irregularity has been committed either in the conduct of the investigation or taking of cognizance and issuance of process by the Magistrate. it is further submitted that victim of the crime had supported the allegations of the FIR in her statements. Thus the application is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the first information report of this case was lodged by the informant/ victim herself on 28.1.2021 at 9.05 p.m. at Police Station Fatanpur, District Pratapgarh stating therein that she is aged about 16 years and on 24.1.2021 at 4.00 p.m. when she had gone to cut grass in agricultural field the applicant and other co-accused persons started teasing her and also molested her and also intimidated her not to disclose the incident to any one. The informant/ victim was medically examined and she complained of pain in right forearm and abdomen. She has supported the incident in her statements. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court the material which has been placed on record reflects commission of cognizable offence by the applicant and there is nothing on record which may suggest that the investigation is either tainted or not conducted in a fair manner. Thus in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, the prayer with regard to the quashing of proceedings of the case pending before the court below and summoning order and charge sheet is hereby refused.
It is reflected from the record that bailable warrant of Rs. 10,000/- has also been issued against the applicant, vide order dated 22.2.2022 and it is submitted at this juncture by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready to participate in the trial but is apprehending that disposal of bail application may take much time for its disposal and in the meantime, the applicant may be confined in prison. Thus appropriate directions be given to the subordinate court.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021, have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 20 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.6.2022 Muk