Allahabad High Court
Praveen And 5 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40795 of 2022
Applicant :- Praveen And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi
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 Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 2761 of 2016 (State Vs. Praveen and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 324, 308, 506, 427, 504 IPC, P.S. Highway, District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura as well as Bailable Warrant dated 04.10.2016.
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 applicants. 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 applicants have got a right of discharge and they are 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 summoning order 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, same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).
As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.1.2023
Krishna*
