Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy Deptt Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11779 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5784 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy Deptt Of Home Civil Sectt U.P. Lko And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pal Singh Yadav,Prathama Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the impugned order dated 28.7.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Case No. 872 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC, (Krishna Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal and others), by which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, issued B.W. of Rs.20,000/- against the applicant by fixing dated 7.9.2022 for appearance.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

The prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 28.7.2022 is refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicant approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of.

Order Date :- 30.8.2022

A.