HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 70
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3946 of 2019
Revisionist :- Sunder Singh @ Munna And 3 Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- V.K. Baranwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
This revision under Section 397/Section401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by Session Judge, Court No.11, Agra, whereby application no.14 kha under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the informant/opposite party no.2 has been allowed and revisionists have been summoned as an additional accused to face trial under Sections 498A, Section323, Section307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.
Assailing the impugned order dated 6.8.2019, it is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that general role has been assigned against the revisionists, therefore, impugned order dated 6.8.2019 summoning the revisionists is not sustainable.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the evidence which has come on record is against the revisionists and in the nature of more than prima facie. The trial court by the impugned order dated 6.8.2019 has allowed the application under Sectionsection 319 Cr.P.C. of the informant in the light of judgment of Apex Court in case of SectionHardeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC 92, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 6.8.2019.
After advancing certain arguments at some length by the learned counsel for the revisionists, when the Court put certain query to him, he gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned order dated 06.08.2019 against the revisionists and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the revisionists to surrender before the concerned court below. The learned counsel for the revisionists further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this revision on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the revisionists expeditiously in accordance with law.
In view of above, the relief as sought by the revisionists in the instant application is refused.
Considering the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionists, it is directed that in case revisionists appear before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, the bail application of the revisionists shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law keeping in view of the Seven Judges’ decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437.
For the period of 45 days from today or till the date of appearance of the revisionists before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionists in the above case.
With the above observations and directions, this revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019