Court No. - 45 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19666 of 2010 Petitioner :- Hasib Uddin And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vinod Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Adovcate Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning
order dated 30.4.2010, passed in Sessions Trial No.401 of 2008 under
Sections 308/34, 325/34 and 506 IPC
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant nos.3 &
4 are ladies, therefore, their bail application may be considered on the same
day, if possible by the Court below.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the
applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a
malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain
documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law
laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10)
2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be
considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge
under Sections 239, 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may through a
proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the
submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order, is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail
application of the applicant nos.3 & 4 shall be considered by the Court below
on the same day if possible, and for remaining applicants their prayer for bail
shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and
in a recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009, Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the
disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive
action shall be taken against the applicants. However in case the applicants do
not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action
shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, the present 482 petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.7.2010
Hasnain