Rajesh Mishra alias Pappu vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, advocate, appearing for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State on the application dated 9.9.2008, which has been moved to grant some short time to enable the applicant to appear/surrender in the Court concerned and apply for bail in compliance of the order dated 1.8.2008.

From the record, it is revealed that an application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. was moved in Crl. Misc. Application No. 19993 of 2008 on behalf of the accused-Rajesh Mishra alias Pappu, in which it was prayed that the courts below be directed to decide the bail application of the applicant-accused expeditiously on the same day in Case Crime No. 460 of 2008, under Sections 307 and 504, I.P.C., P. S. Cantt. district Bareilly. Application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. was decided on 1.8.2008 with a direction to the courts below to hear and dispose of the bail application of the applicant in aforesaid case in accordance with the law laid down by the Seven Judges'' Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Amrawati and Anr. v. State of U. P. (50) 2004 ACC 742. By the same order three weeks'' time was granted for the applicant to surrender in the Court concerned, but he did not surrender in the court below within that period. Now the applicant has made prayer to grant some more time to appear in the court below and apply for bail in compliance of the order dated 1.8.2008.

In my opinion, there is no need to grant any further time for the applicant to surrender in the court below, because there is no legal bar for the applicant to surrender in Case Crime No. 460 of P. S. Cantt. district Bareilly, if he is wanted in that case. Any person, who is wanted in any criminal case, can surrender in the Court concerned by moving application for this purpose at any time and if he is taken into custody by the Court, then he has right to move the application for bail and if any bail application is moved, then the Court concerned is bound to decide that bail application in accordance with law. Therefore, prayer made in the application dated 9.9.2008 is redundant.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that unless a specific direction is issued by this Court for deciding the bail application on the same day or in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Seven Judges'' Bench of this Court in Smt. Amrawati and Anr. v. State of U. P. (50) 2004 ACC 742, the subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh are not following the law laid down in that decision and hence, in present case also, a specific direction be issued again to the court below to decide the bail application of the applicant in accordance with law laid down in Smt. Amrawati case (supra).

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I do not think that any further specific direction is required to be issued to the court below to decide the bail application of the applicant in accordance with guidelines laid down by Seven Judges Bench of this Court in Smt. Amrawati case (supra), because the law laid down in that decision by this Court is binding on all the subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh. In this context, reference may be made to Rule 6 of General Rules (Civil), 1957 which provides that "All subordinate courts shall follow the rulings of the High Court which are in force." Every subordinate court in Uttar Pradesh is supposed to follow the law and guidelines laid down in Smt. Amrawati case (supra) and for this purpose no separate specific direction is required to be issued by this Court. Agreeing with the view of this Court in Smt. Amrawati case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23rd March, 2009, passed in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U. P. and others, has directed all the Courts in Uttar Pradesh to follow the decision of Smt. Amrawati case (supra) in letter and spirit. It is also directed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in afore-cited decision that ''in appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person''s reputation.'' In view of these directions also, all the subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh are under obligation to follow the law laid down in Smt. Amrawati case (supra). The direction issued by the Hon''ble Apex Court in afore-cited decision, must also be followed in letter and spirit by all the subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh.

With the observations mentioned hereinabove, the application is disposed of.