Rinku @ Yashwant Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Vikram Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. By moving the present application u/s 482 Cr. P.C., charge sheet dated 19.01.2013 in Case No. 63 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 399 of 2012, under Sections 147, 332 IPC, P.S. Etmadpur, District Agra, have been prayed to be quashed.

From the perusal of the 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court u/s 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. The State of Punjab, , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge before the trial Court through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submission in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

No case for quashing the charge-sheet is made out and as such the prayer is declined.

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears before the court concerned within a period of 30 days from today along with the certified copy of this order and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., and the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , after hearing the public prosecutor.

For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive process shall 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 and no protection of this order shall be available to him.

It is being made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the subordinate court shall exercise its independent discretion in deciding the application for bail. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.