Back
2019 Supreme(All) 305
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
UMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
Rakshpal Singh and Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Defective No. 347 of 2019
Decided on : 05-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Ashish Kumar Gaur, Adv.
The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to allow the delay condonation application, and directed the consideration of bail application and interim bail prayer as per the mandate of Section 15A (5) of Act, 1989.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation Application - Criminal Appeal - The court allowed the delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was treated as filed within time.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which was reported to be beyond time by 287 days. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was treated as filed within time.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal challenging the charge sheet and the impugned order, finding no infirmity in the charge sheet and the order passed by the trial court. The court also directed that the appellants' bail application and interim bail prayer shall be considered and decided on the same day, with regular bail to be decided thereafter.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the appeal, the challenge against the charge sheet and the impugned order, and the consideration of bail application and interim bail prayer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no infirmity in the charge sheet and the order passed by the trial court, and allowed the delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court also directed the consideration of bail application and interim bail prayer as per the mandate of Section 15A (5) of Act, 1989.
Final Decision: The appeal challenging the charge sheet and the impugned order was dismissed, and the delay condonation application was allowed. The court directed the consideration of bail application and interim bail prayer as per the mandate of Section 15A (5) of Act, 1989.
UMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
(Order in Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application.
2. This delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed on behalf of the appellants with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which is reported to be beyond time by 287 days.
3. Due to the grounds specified in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the appellants could not file the appeal in time.
4. Cause shown is sufficient. The prayer so made is accepted and accordingly, the delay condonation application stands allowed. The delay is condoned and the appeal is treated to have been filed well within time.
(Order in Appeal)
5. This criminal appeal under Section 14A (1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act, 1989’) has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2018 dated 01.03.2018 as well as the impugned order dated 16.07.2018, in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2018 (State v. Rakshpal Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(d) of Act, 1989, Police Station - Neoria, District - Pilibhit, whereby cognizance has been taken against the appellants under the aforesaid sections.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that from perusal of the first information report, no offence is made out against the appellants.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A., contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court.
8. 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 appellants.
9. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned charge-sheet as well as the impugned order passed by the trial court and as such, this appeal stands dismissed.
10. However, none of the aforesaid offences against appellants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. The police has submitted charge-sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
11. Accordingly, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State and another reported in, (2018) 2 AllCriR 2190, it is directed that in case the appellants file their bail application and also pray for interim bail, their prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day and the regular bail shall be decided thereafter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or his/her dependent as per the mandate of Section 15A (5) of Act, 1989.
12. For a period of 60 days from today or till the appellants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.
