Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State-respondent.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the complaints case no. 1247 of 2009, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura.

Perusal of Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the present application shows that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 6840 of 2011, which was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1.4.2011 directing the applicant to move an application for bail as per the directions contained in the said order. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that co-accused Shakuntala Devi, who was bona fide purchaser for value of the property in question, had also approached under the same case crime number, by filing Criminal 482 Application No. 26627 of 2011 and another Bench of this Court had passed an interim order on 7.9.2011 in favour of co-accused, copy of the order dated 7.9.2011 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the present application. It is further contended that on an application moved by Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the District Magistrate directed for making an enquiry and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, concerned after making enquiry found that the opposite party no. 2 is not concerned with the property in question, thereafter, direction has also been issued for lodging of the first information report against the opposite party no. 2.

As this is the second 482 Cr.P.C. petition for quashing the same relief, which is not maintainable.

Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that some time may be granted to the applicant to move an application for grant of bail before the concerned Court.

In view of the above, if the applicant move an application for grant of bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned Court expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the Public Prosecutor, in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 20 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.