Allahabad High Court
Pratap Singh Katiyar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Rajul Bhargava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29751 of 2019
Applicant :- Pratap Singh Katiyar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Sarvesh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record.
The applicant by means of the present application has sought to quash the impugned orders dated 04.05.2019 and 17.05.2019 and the proceedings in Special Session Trial No.28 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 368 of 2016 under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 504 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rura,District Kanpur Dehat (Ramabai Nagar), pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat (Ramabai Nagar).
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no.2. As per the prosecution version contained in the F.I.R. and statement of the witnesses recorded during trial, specific role has been attributed to co-accused Anshu Singh and the applicant was merely present on the tractor and was accompanying Anshu Singh when the incident took place. It is further submitted that during investigation participation and presence of the applicant was found false and thus he was not charge-sheeted. However, the trial court vide order dated 16.1.2019 has summoned the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the same was challenged by the applicant in Criminal Revision No.806 of 2019. The Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 allowed the revision on the ground that learned Magistrate has not even considered the material collected during investigation and making out the grounds of dropping the name of the applicant-revisionist from the charge-sheet and passed the impugned order. Not only this, trial court has not recorded his satisfaction of the involvement of the revisionist in the commission of the crime or his active participation therein. In view it, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court for reconsideration of the application of the revisionist and decide it afresh. Thereafter, impugned orders dated 04.05.2019 and 17.05.2019 have been passed whereby the applicant has now been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial.
I have consciously gone through the impugned orders. Learned Judge has now recorded satisfaction and also relied upon the statement of PW 1, Indrapal the informant and PW 2, Munnu who have consistently stated that co-accused, Anshu Singh along with applicant and one other wanted forcibly to take the tractor through the field of first informant in which crop was standing and on being objected co-accused, Anshu Singh is stated to have fired. Only because no role has been attributed to the applicant, it cannot be said that the applicant has not committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and other sections. In my opinion, there is also evidence of commission of offence under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act.
In the light of aforesaid, no interference is called for in the impugned orders.
However, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts of the case and that the applicant is a heart patient, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 3 weeks from today and applies for bail,his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 3 weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
MN/-
