Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Panchal & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 23 November, 2011
Bench: Imtiyaz Murtaza, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21978 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Panchal & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Bajpai
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Neeraj Tiwari
Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petititioners and the learned A.G.A.
By means of this petition petitioners have prayed for quashing the F.I.R. registered at case crime no.751 of 2011, under Sections 147, 323 and 504 and also the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of S.C/S.T. Act P.S. Nawabad District Jhansi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that writ petition No.21228 of 2011 of co-accused has been disposed of by the Court on 16.11.2011 by the following directions:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR in case crime no. 751 of 2011, under sections 147, 323, 504 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, police station Nawabad, district Jhansi.
The writ court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed.
Hence no ground exists for quashing the F.I.R.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if petitioner moves application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date within two weeks thereafter for appearance of the petitioner and in the meantime release the petitioner on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper, till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and as far as possible, also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioner in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cri.L.J.755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan vs. State of U.P. 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit, provided that the adjournment of hearing of the regular bail on one or more dates should not exceed a total period of one month.
It will also be in the discretion of the Sessions/Special Judge concerned to consider granting interim bail pending consideration of the regular bail on similar terms as mentioned herein above if petitioner applies for bail before him.
For a period of three weeks from today or till the petitioner appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail (whichever is earlier), the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case crime.
In case the petitioner fails to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or he fails to cooperate with the investigating officer during interrogation, it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for cancelling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. "
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is also disposed of finally in terms of order passed in writ petition No.21228 of 2011.
Order Date :- 23.11.2011
Shahnaz
