Anuj Kumar And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3726 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                      NAINITAL
        Criminal Misc. Application No. 2089 of 2022

Anuj Kumar and others
                                                        ..... Petitioners
                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand
                                                      .....Respondents

Mr. Birendra Singh Adikhari, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

Charge-Sheet No. 426 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019;

cognizance order dated 13.08.2019, passed in Criminal

Case No. 950 of 020, by the court of Additional Judicial

Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. ("the case")

2. The case is based on an F.I.R. lodged by

respondent no. 2 ("the informant"). According to the

FIR, on 01.01.2019 at 10.00, the petitioners attacked

Pradeep Kumar, Gaurav & Vishal, and abused them.

On the said F.I.R., after investigation, the charge-sheet

has been submitted and cognizance has been taken

against the petitioners, which is basis of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the

very outset submits that the disputes are factual in

nature. He submits that a direction may be given to the

court below to decide the bail application of the

petitioners, in view of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar

Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another,

(2021) 10 SSC 773.

4. The learned State counsel submits that the

court below would definitely follow the directions

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment

Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra).

5. The scope of the jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C., is quite wide, but much guided by a

catena of decisions. Suffice to say, in case prima facie,

offence is made out, generally no interference is

warranted.

6. In the instant case, the F.I.R., clearly

discloses commission of offence, which was found to be

true after investigation. Even otherwise, no arguments

has been raised on merits. Therefore, there is no

reasons to make an interference, accordingly, the

petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission

stage itself.

6. Its argued by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the directions may be issued to the

court below to follow the directions of Hon'ble Supreme

Court, as given in the case Satendra Kumar (supra).

The directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as given in

the case Satendra Kumar (supra) is law of a land. Each

court has to follow these directions. In order to follow

the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further

directions of this Court is required.

7. With the above observation, the petition is

dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.11.2022

MR/PN