Court No.28
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 471 of 2010
1- Ram Lakhan Singh
2- Ram Naresh
3- Dinesh Singh
All R/o Teju Singh Ka Purwa,
Village Bargadaha, Police Station Harchandpur,
District Rae Bareli. ...............Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...........Opp. Parties
Hon'ble Alok K. Singh, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. who has put in appearance on
behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2.
At this stage notice in respect of opposite party no.3 is dispensed with.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-
sheet dated 25.03.2005 arising out of Case Crime No.265 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 3 (1) X S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Harchandpur, District Rae Bareli.
The charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of the accusation made in the F.I.R. and the
evidence collected during investigation including the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The other
averments are factual in nature that cannot be adjudicated in the present application. There does not
appear to be any sufficient cogent ground for quashing of the charge-sheet or entire proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate
and not so grave except Section 3 (1) X S.C.S.T. Act. He also submits that petitioner no.1 is 83 years
of age and as such he has become infirm who is entitled to get the benefit of the relevant provisions
contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C in respect of granting bail in favour of infirm persons. Nevertheless,
all the petitioners being law abiding citizens intend to participate in the proceedings after seeking bail.
Without entering into the merits of the case in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
is directed that if the applicants appear before the court concerned and apply for bail within one month
from today, both the courts below shall dispose of the application expeditiously, if possible, on same
day in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Srimati Amrawati and
another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 CBC page 705 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P.
reported in 2009 (1) JIC 677 & 2009 (2) Crimes 4 (SC). Thereafter, the trial court may permit the
applicants to appear through counsel and raise their objection, if any, against the initiation of trial
proceedings against them at the stage of framing of charges. This relief is being granted up to the stage
of framing of charges only provided the applicants after securing bail (1) furnish an undertaking to the
satisfaction of the trial court that their counsel will remain present on their behalf and will represent
them on each and every date, (2) they will not raise any objection as to the actual presence of the
person who is facing trial, (3) an undertaking will also be given to the effect that they will be present
before the court whenever called upon to do so at any stage. These directions are being accorded in the
light of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs.
Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited reported in 2001 Cri. Law Journal page 4250.
Till the aforesaid period of one month, bailable/non-bailable warrant, if any, shall be kept in
abeyance.
In respect of petitioner no.1 it is also provided that since he is said to be aged about 83 years
and an infirm person if his bail is not decided on the same day for son reasons or the other he may be
enlarged on interim bail till the pendency of his regular bail application.
With these observations this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
03.02.2010
PAL/CMC No. 471 of 2010