IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2089 of 2022
Anuj Kumar and others
..... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
.....Respondents
Mr. Birendra Singh Adikhari, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the Charge-Sheet No. 426 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019; cognizance order dated 13.08.2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 950 of 020, by the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. ("the case")
2. The case is based on an F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 2 ("the informant"). According to the FIR, on 01.01.2019 at 10.00, the petitioners attacked Pradeep Kumar, Gaurav & Vishal, and abused them. On the said F.I.R., after investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, which is basis of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset submits that the disputes are factual in nature. He submits that a direction may be given to the 2 court below to decide the bail application of the petitioners, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SSC 773.
4. The learned State counsel submits that the court below would definitely follow the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra).
5. The scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is quite wide, but much guided by a catena of decisions. Suffice to say, in case prima facie, offence is made out, generally no interference is warranted.
6. In the instant case, the F.I.R., clearly discloses commission of offence, which was found to be true after investigation. Even otherwise, no arguments has been raised on merits. Therefore, there is no reasons to make an interference, accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.
6. Its argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the directions may be issued to the court below to follow the directions of Hon'ble Supreme 3 Court, as given in the case Satendra Kumar (supra). The directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as given in the case Satendra Kumar (supra) is law of a land. Each court has to follow these directions. In order to follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further directions of this Court is required.
7. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.11.2022 MR/PN