IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Misc. Appln. No.1670 of 2012

IN

Criminal Misc. Application No.1300 of 2012

(U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

1.

Manmohan Singh Bindra

2.

Gurvinder Kaur Bindra

………..Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarkahand & another

………Respondents

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. K.S. Rautela, AGA for the State.

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

This matter was scheduled to be heard on 7.1.2012 as

per the notices were sent to respondent no.2, and thus,

learned counsel engage on behalf of the said respondent is not

in a position to argue the matter today.

On the other hand, a criminal miscellaneous application

no.1670 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioners with the

prayer

that

Judicial

Magistrate-I

and

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate, Dehradun may be directed to decide the bail

application, which they propose to file, the same day when it is

filed and in case hearing of bail application due to some

reason is adjourned, the applicants may be released on

interim bail in terms and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the matter of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. &

others passed in Crl. Appeal No.538 of 2009 decided on

23.3.2009.

2

This said application moved by the petitioners has no

force for the reason that no person can have the liberty to

plead the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and

simultaneously to make annexure of the same with his

application. Further, even in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap

Singh, there were certain norms laid down by the Apex Court

for disposal of the bail application, particularly in case where

the F.I.R. is lodged against the accused persons and they feel

it difficult to surrender in the court on account of the pressure

mounting by the Investigating Officer. Considering that

eventuality, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding

norms to meet out such an eventuality in respect of the State

of Uttar Pradesh where the provisions of anticipatory bail are

not in force.

Now, in the instant case, a chargesheet has been

submitted against the petitioners. During investigation, their

arrest was stayed by this Court but the formidable evidence

has been collected against them at the level of investigation in

order to make out the case which has culminated into the

submission of a chargesheet.

Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the

application No.1670 of 2012, as also the C482 petition

no.1300 of 2012, being devoid of any merit, both are hereby

dismissed.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)

01

1.2013

.0

Rdang