Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7952 of 2022

Applicant :- Shiv Mangal And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the material available on record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by

applicants to quash the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 by

which non bailable warrant has been issued against the

applicants in pursuance of Criminal Case No.111 of 2019

arising out of Case Crime No.87 of 2018, under Sections 323,

504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Dheena, District Chaundauli.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the

applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case just

to pressurize and harass the applicants, in fact, no such incident

has taken place. Further submission is that no offence against

the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed

to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the

applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of

his contention.

From the perusal of 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 applicants. All the submissions made at

the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be

adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At

this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the

law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs.

State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.

Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.

P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and

another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence

of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the

applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or

227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and

they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge

application before the trial court.

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the above

mentioned case is hereby refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail

application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case

Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail

application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under

four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that

the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the

aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application.

This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants

approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely

follow the directions given in the case of Satendra Kumar

Antil (supra).

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the

F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the

applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and

surrender before the court concerned within 30 days from today

and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of

expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid

by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra).

For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the

application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive

action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

However, in case, the applicants did not appear before the court

below within the aforesaid period, trial court will be at liberty to

take coercive action against t