Allahabad High Court
Mohit Mishra And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 551 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohit Mishra And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. Perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer for quashing the charge sheet dated 25.02.2019 in Criminal Case No. 9508 of 2020 (State vs. Vikash Pandey and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308, 336, 324, 325 IPC, Police Station Cannt, District Varanasi, arising out of Case Crime No. 512 of 2018 under the aforesaid sections and cognizance order dated 02.07.2020 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offene is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against the certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his clients would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide their bail application within specific time frame.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as cognizance order and the entire proceedings are refused.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and after perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would consider the bail application of the applicants as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC), after the applicants surrender within 30 days from today before the court below and if their bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702.
For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforementioned case.
With the aforesaid observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021
HSM
