JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Desh Mitra Anand Advocate, assisted by Sri. Utkarsh Anand Advocate, the learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri. Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate General, who is assisted by Sri. Rao Narendra Singh, the learned A.G.A.-I and Sri. Chinmay Shukla for the State.

2. By means of the present application, the applicants have prayed for grant of bail to them in Case Crime No. 105/2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 325, 427, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nagram, District Lucknow.

3. The F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Rajaram at 14:04 on 05.05.2021 against four persons – (1) Ram Pal, (2) Sandeep, (3) Shyamlal and (4) Shyamdeo alleging that at about 7 a.m. on the aforesaid date, the aforesaid four named persons had abused and beaten up the informant with sticks and when his wife ran to save him, she was also beaten with a stick causing an injury on her head. The accused persons thrown away the goods of the informant shop and they had beaten up some other persons also.

4. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he reiterated the F.I.R. version that the incident was caused by the four persons named in the F.I.R. All the four named accused persons were arrested at 3:20 on 06.05.2021.

5. The Investigating Officer recorded in the case diary on 09.05.2021 that eight persons, including the informant, had received injuries in the incident. The investigating officer recorded statements of all the injured persons and all of them stated that the four persons named in the F.I.R. had beaten them. After recording their statements, the investigating officer added Section 308 IPC.

6. On 10.05.2021, the investigating officer recorded statements of two persons, who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the incident and they stated that besides the four named persons, all the applicants and one Satguru, where also involved in causing the incident and they stated that police force from the police station and 112 had reached the spot of the incident.

7. Thereafter the investigating officer recorded additional statement of the informant wherein he also implicated the applicants and Satguru, besides the named accused persons.

8. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application it has been stated that the applicants were not served with any notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C. and they were not arrested during trial.

9. The applicants had filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1735 of 2022 for quashing of the proceedings. While dismissing the aforesaid application, this Court observed that in case the applicants move an application for discharge within a period of 15 days, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with the law. Liberty was granted to the applicants to file an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption from appearance.

10. The Application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that the offences alleged are triable by the Sessions Court and the Magistrate is not empowered to decide the plea of discharge and to frame charges. The Magistrate rejected another application filed by the applicants for accepting their undertaking in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773, on the ground that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has conferred a discretion to be exercised in respect of the persons who are intending to participate in the trial of the case whereas the applicants are not appearing before the trial Court and they are not co-operating with the trial.

11. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Magistrate by filing another Application under Section 482 No. 3564 of 2022, which was disposed off by means of an order dated 08.06.2022 by issuing a direction to the Magistrate that if any regular bail application is moved by the applicants within 15 d