Allahabad High Court
Test Petitioner vs Test Respondent on 16 October, 2016
Bench: Dilip Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 999999 of 2016
Applicant :- Test Petitioner
Opposite Party :- Test Respondent
Counsel for Applicant :- Test Petitioner Counsel
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Test Respondent Counsel
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the FIR registered at Case Crime No.____ of ____, under Sections__________ IPC, P.S. ______, District __________.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the _____________ of the crime and he has no concern with the alleged incident. The case of the petitioner being distinguishable from the case of than that of co-accused deserves to interim relief.
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.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioner moves an application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about 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 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 when and if the 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 investing 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.
It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to surrender/appear before the court concerned for the purpose of applying bail within given period, he shall not be entitled for extension of period.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.10.2016
AL
