Allahabad High Court
Chandra Pal Singh Saini vs State Of U.P.And Another on 1 June, 2022
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13637 of 2022
Applicant :- Chandra Pal Singh Saini
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants to quash the charge sheet dated 07.10.2020 as well as cognizance and summoning order in CAse No. 3899 of 2021 (State Vs Chandra Pal Saini) arising out of Case Crime No. 443 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chhajlet, District Moradabad, pending in the Court of ACJM, Court No. 4 Moradabad.
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 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 proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra).
For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. However, in case, the applicants did not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, trial court will be at liberty to take coercive action against them in accordance with law.
With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 1.6.2022
Ajeet/RavindraKSingh
