Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174165
Court No. - 85
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9088 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ravindra Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Singh Tomar,Adarsh Bhushan,Shri Krishna Das
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Present petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue an order or direction quashing the impugned order and judgment dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure no. 10 to this petition) passed in Criminal Revision no. 215 of 2023 (Sushila Devi vs. State of U.P. and others) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a FIR dated 21.03.2022 bearing case crime no. 102 of 2022 was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners and 6 other accused persons with the allegation that on dated 21.03.2022 petitioners along with some others persons entered the house of respondent no. 2 and started beating the family members of respondent no. 2 wherein eight persons of respondent's side received injuries. Rest of the story would be evident from the copy of FIR at Annexure no. 1 to the petition.
4. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet dated 01.05.2022 in case crime no. 102 of 2022 against the petitioners and other co-accused under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 325, 308 IPC whereupon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur took cognizance and summoned petitioners vide order dated 29.07.2022.
5. It is next submitted that present case is a case of cross-FIR and petitioners have also lodged a FIR dated 21.03.2022 bearing case crime no. 103 of 2022 against the informant and other co-accused and injuries have been sustained by both the sides.
6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 29.07.2022, petitioners filed Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C no. 35072 of 2022 before this Court wherein co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.11.2022 disposed of the application with the following observation:-
"...............
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant nos. 1 and 4 have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.
As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off in respect of applicant nos.1 and 4."
7. Thereafter, petitioners filed an application dated 24.05.2023 under Section 88 Cr.P.C before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur with a prayer to release the petitioners on personal bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C and the court below in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 5191 of 2021 has released the petitioners vide order dated 25.05.2023 on personal bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each under Section 88 Cr.P.C.
8. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.05.2023, respondent no. 2 filed Criminal Revision no. 215 of 2023 challenging the order dated 25.05.2023 before the District and Session Judge, Jaunpur which was allowed vide order dated 09.07.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Jaunpur by way of setting aside the order dated 25.05.2023 and remanding back the matter to court below for passing a fresh order and the same has been challenged through the instant petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 on the ground that the order is totally illegal in the eye of law since the same has been passed in ignorance of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal no. 2608 of 2024 (Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 971. All the charges against the petitioners are below 7 years and hence the petitioners were rightly granted bail on personal bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
10. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and supported the order impugned.
11. Before coming to merits of the case a ready reference of Section 88 Cr.P.C. would be useful to understand the provision and the same is quoted hereinbelow:
"Section 88- Power to take bond for appearance - When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial."
12. Perusal of impugned order dated 09.07.2024 reveals that the order dated 25.05.2023 has been set aside on the ground that the learned court below failed to consider the fact that the petitioners never appeared before the court on their free will and they only appeared after process has been issued against them. Moreover petitioners have been charged with Section 308 IPC also which is non-bailable offence and is triable by Session Court only hence provision of Section 88 Cr.P.C is not applicable upon the petitioners instead Section 437 Cr.P.C is applicable upon petitioners.
13. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners in the case of Tarsem Lal (supra) is not applicable in the instant matter. None of the grounds raised through the instant petition are convincing enough within the ambit of law to attract interference of this Court. The order dated 09.07.2024 is fully justified and legal and is free from any infirmity or illegality.
14. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petition lacks merit and stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 6.11.2024
Shaswat
