Bhupendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Anil Kumar

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

The applicant has challenged the proceeding of a charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C., case crime No. 124 of 2005, police station Kotwali City, district Etah, pending in the court of C.J.M., Etah.

The learned Counsel for the applicant is contended that the other co-accused persons have already been acquitted. He submitted that since the co-accused persons have been acquitted, therefore, he should not be tried and he based his submission on the principal of stare decises and also relied upon the judgment of this Court reporting in (53) 2005 A.C.C. 305 Kalimuddin Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. The applicant has not appeared in the trial court as yet. He has not made any application before the trial court for the purposes of discharge or acquittal in accordance with the law laid down by this Court mentioned above. It will be a travesty of justice to close the case and acquit the accused who has not appear before the court at all. It is not the law that the principal of stare decises should be applied also to the accused who had been avoiding the process of law. It will be misused of the power of the court if such an order is passed in respect of those persons who have got no respect for the orders of the court.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is rejected. The applicant is free to appear in the court and raise his grievances in view of the law laid down by this Court and who will decide it by passing a reasoned order thereon.