Allahabad High Court
Manvendra Singh Alias Manu And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 January, 2010
Author: Ravindra Singh
Bench: Ravindra Singh
Court No. - 54 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26964 of 2009 Petitioner :- Manvendra Singh Alias Manu And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Akhilesh Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant files rejoinder affidavit is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
In pursuance of the order dated 21.10.2009 Smt. Priyanka Singh, respondent no. 2 is present in the Court. She stated that she is having apprehension of her life. In any case she cannot live in the company of her husband.
This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case no. 5056 of 2009 arising out of Crime No. 25 of 2009 under sections 498A, 323, 506, 315 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Vrindavan, District Mathura.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of the material collected by the I.O. prima facie offence is made out. There is no illegality in the statement of charge sheet. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as criminal proceeding is refused. The impugned order dated 21.10.2009 is hereby vacated.
However, considering the facts, it is directed that in case applicant no. 1 to 4 appears before the court concerned within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J. 755.
The Full Bench of this court has held in the aforementioned case:
1. Even if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or complaint the arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981, before deciding whether to make an arrest or not.
2. The High Court should ordinarily not direct any Subordinate Court to decide the bail application the same day, as that would be interfering with the judicial discretion of the court hearing the bail application. However, as stated above, when the bail application is under section 437 Cr.P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself decide the bail application the same day, and if he decides in a rare and exceptional case not to decide it on the same day, he must record his reasons in writing. As regards the application under section 439 Cr.P.C. it is in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge, considering the facts and circumstances whether to decide the bail application the same day or not, and it is also in his discretion to grant interim bail the same day subject to the final decision on the bail application later.
The same has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. on 23.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009.
With this direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.1.2010 prabhat