1
Court No.28
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 154 of 2010
1- Umesh Verma
2- Rajesh Rawat
3- Nand Kishore Verma
4- Gokaran Prasad Verma
5- Santosh Kumar Rawat
6- Asha Ram Rawat
7- Ram Achal Rawat
8- Vijay Verma
9- Satya Kumar Patel
10- Ram Narayan Neta
11- Arjun Pradhan
12- R.K. Chaudhary
13- Ram Yash Vikram
14- Ajay Kumar Verma alias Bantu Pradhan
15- Mahraj Deen Rawat
16- Prem Chaudhary
17- Mahadev Verma
18- Sanjay Pal
19- Mahesh Verma
20- Devi Prasad
21- Vikram
22- Ram Sanehi
23- Munna Soni
24- Shyam Singh alias Raju Singh
25- Lawkush Rawat ...............Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...........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 no.1.
At this stage notice in respect of opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
impugned charge-sheet dated 01.06.2008 arising out of Case Crime No.199 of 2008,
under Sections 143, 145, 341, 332, 336, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow.
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 not so
grave and triable by Magistrate. Moreover all the petitioners being law abiding citizens
2
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.
With these observations this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally
disposed of.
18.01.2010
PAL/CMC No. 154 of 2010