At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
For the Appellant: Vidya Nand Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: -------.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.
1. This application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet submitted in case crime no. 269 of 2011, u/ss. 16/17 Badhuwa Sharm Adhiniyam and 374 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)6 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Akrabad, district Aligarh, State Vs. Mohd. Suhaib, pending before learned A.C.J.M., Court no. 7, Aligarh as case no. 1508 of 2011. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded.
3. The law regarding the sufficiency of the material which may justify the summoning of the accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case, is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
4. The quashing of the charge sheet or the proceeding consequent thereupon may be done only if the F.I.R. and the evidence or material collected by the Investigating Officer does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and another Shri S.A. Khan, , State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, make the position of law in this regard clear.
5. The perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them.
6. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
7. However, it has been submitted that the applicant has obtained the bail under all other Sections for which he has been indicted except Section 3(1) 6 S.C./S.T. Act and he wants to surrender before the court concerned and obtain bail under the aforesaid Section, a protective direction may be issued to the lower court to decide the same on the same day in the light of the law laid down in Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., .
8. It may be observed that the law regarding the hearing of bail applications on the same day and all its related aspects have been comprehensively dealt with in the aforesaid case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., relied upon by the counsel which was also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . All the courts must endeavour to decide the bail applications on the same day in suitable cases, if it is possible for them to do so depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in question. This is a matter of lower court's discretion which they must exercise judiciously in appropriate cases.
9. Above mentioned Full Bench decision of this Court and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court are binding on the lower courts. They must be followed in letter and spirit. There is no need to pass separate orders in this regard.
10. However, it is directed that if the applicant surrenders and moves his bail application within one
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
month from today, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to in the aforesaid period or till the date of his appearance in the court below, whichever is earlier. 11. It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if the applicant does not avail of this order in the stipulated period of time. With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.