Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:19186
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39992 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Mayank Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash order dated 27.07.2022 issued by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Case No.1428 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.258 of 2015 (State vs. Harish Maurya & others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.Mauaima, District-Allahabad pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against 18 named persons including the applicant and 500 unknown persons, thereafter, a charge sheet was submitted against so many persons including the applicant and the Magistrate has summoned the applicants vide order dated 07.09.2016. He further submits that since no notice was served upon the applicants and they were not aware of the aforesaid case, so they could not appear before the Court concerned. He also submits that after issuance of N.B.W.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the present application and contends that the applicants were summoned way back in the year 2016, thereafter, the Court had issued N.B.W. on 27.07.2022 but the applicants chose not to appear before the Court. He further submits that the Court has rightly passed the impugned order against the applicants.
5. Since the applicants did not raise any ground which calls for interference by this Court and quashing of the impugned order, while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer for quashing the impugned order is hereby refused.
6. 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 matter of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
7. 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 Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
8. However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned 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 Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
9. With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 5.2.2024
Manish Himwan
