Akil Ahamad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this C482 application, applicant has challenged the cognizance and summoning order dated 27.01.2020 passed in Criminal Case No.706 of 2020, State Vs. Intiyaz & Ors., under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 26 of the Forest Act registered at Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Today, the matter is listed on Urgency Applications (IA Nos.1 & 2 of 2024). It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that since no interim order is operating in favour of the applicant, learned trial court has issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the applicant.

From perusal of the FIR No.0104 of 2019 dated 29.05.2019, it transpires that the serious allegations were made against the accused named in the FIR, but the name of the applicant cropped up during investigation and subsequently, the charge-sheet under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 26 of the Forest Act was submitted against the applicant after investigation. Applicant failed to appear before the learned Trial Court since 27.01.2020.

It is feeling aggrieved by the submission of the charge-sheet, the applicant is before this Court by filing the present C482 application.

This Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not in a position to sift the evidence and when prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court cannot entered into the merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial.

Accordingly, the C482 application is rejected.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.