Court No. - 54 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5877 of 2010 Petitioner :- Om Prakash And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Sunil Kr. Shrivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
The applicants were directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and O.P.
No. 2 was directed to appear in person before this Court today.
It appears that neither the applicants shall deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/-
nor the O.P. No. 2 has appeared in person.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned
AGA and perused the record.
This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the complaint case no.
4068 of 2009, under sections 323, 504, 506, 489-A I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P. Act,
P.S. Kutubsher, District Saharanpur pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saharanpur.
From perusal of the records it appears that after considering the complaint and
statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. with this court
commission of the aforesaid offence the learned Magistrate concerned has
taken cognizance and summon the applicants vide order dated 20.7.2009. The
order dated 20.7.2007 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity.
There is no good ground for quashing the proceedings of the above mentioned
case. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceedings mentioned in the
case is refused. The interim order dated 23.4.2009 is hereby vacated.
However, considering the facts, it is directed that in case applicants appear
before the court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the
same shall be heard and disposed of in view of Smt. Amrawati and another
Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J. 755.
The Full Bench of this court has held in the aforementioned case:
1. Even if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or complaint the
arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be
guided by the the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar
Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981, before deciding whether to make
an arrest or not.
2. The High Court should ordinarily not direct any Subordinate Court to
decide the bail application the same day, as that would be interfering
with the judicial discretion of the court hearing the bail application.
However, as stated above, when the bail application is under section
437 Cr.P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself decide the bail
application the same day, and if he decides in a rare and exceptional
case not to decide it on the same day, he must record his reasons in
writing. As regards the application under section 439 Cr.P.C. it is in
the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge, considering the facts and
circumstances whether to decide the bail application the same day or
not, and it is also in his discretion to grant interim bail the same day
subject to the final decision on the bail application later.
The same has been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. on 23.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 538
of 2009.
With this direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010
Manoj