Allahabad High Court
Raj Kishore Shukla And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 16 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 37 of 2017
Revisionist :- Raj Kishore Shukla And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sm Singh Royekwar,Naveen Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Naveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Vipul Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. Present revision under section 397 readwith section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed impugning the Judgment and Order dated 19-10-2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-VI, Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 238 of 2013(State Vs. Jai Prakash Shukla & Others), whereby the learned trial court has summoned the revisionists as additional accused to face trial on an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution.
3. The revisionists were named in the F.I.R. which was lodged against the revisionists and other accused under sections 323,324,504,506,307/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Colonelganj, district-Gonda. The Investigating Officer however, did not file Chargesheet against these two accused and filed chargesheet against other four accused. As many as five prosecution witnesses in their testimonies before the trial court have named the revisionists for commission of the offence for which the F.I.R. in question came to be registered against them.
4. Learned trial court after considering the testimonies of the five prosecution witnesses including the injured witnesses and taking into consideration the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. as well as the Judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab, reported in 2014(1) J.I.C,539 has summoned the revisionists as additional accused vide order dated 19-10-2016.
5. Sri Naveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the trial has got concluded against four accused during pendency of the present revision vide Judgment and Order dated 28-09-2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 238 of 2013. The co-accused have been convicted for the offence under sections 323,324,504 & 506 I.P.C., however, they have been acquitted for the offence under section 307 readwith section 34 I.P.C. He also submits that there was an enmity between the father of the revisionists and the complainant and the revisionists have falsely been implicated in the present case.
6. At the time of considering the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the persons as additional accused, the trial court is required to consider as to whether there is more than prima-facie case available against the persons to summon as additional accused or not.
7. In the present case, as many as five prosecution witnesses have specifically named the revisionists to have participated in the commission of offence. The trial court, therefore, correctly has considered the law and summoned the revisionists finding more than prima-facie case against the revisionists.
8. In view thereof, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19-10-2016. However, after considering the fact that other four co-accused have been acquitted for the offence under sections 307/34 I.P.C., it is provided that if the revisionists, Raj Kishore Shukla & Shiva Kant Shuykla, surrender before the trial court within a period of ten days from today and apply for bail, they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing their bail bonds and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned concerned subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The revisionists shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The revisionists shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the revisionists misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the revisionists fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The revisionists shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the revisionists is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid directions, present revision stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022
AKS
