Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State -respondent.
(2.) IT is contended that this Court vide order dated 09.12.2009 had permitted the applicants to move an application for discharge within fifteen days before the court below in case No. 1755 of 2003 under Section , IPC and Section , SC/ST Act, which discharge application was to be considered and decided by the Courts below within 45 days and for a period of two months or till the disposal of discharge application, which ever is earlier, coercive action against the applicants was stayed. It is contended that the courts below without deciding the discharge application, which was filed by the applicants, had issued bailable warrants against the applicants by order 18.06.2010 on the ground that period of two months has lapsed.
(3.) PERUSED the order dated 18.06.2010, which notices that the applicants have not appeared before the Court and therefore, the application for committal of the case to the Court of Session was rejected. The order rejecting the application for committal was challenged before this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. 482 Application No. 4522 of 2010, which was dismissed by Judgment and order dated 08.09.2006, copy of which has been filed as Annexure -3 to the affidavit accompanying the clarification application and it was directed that in case the applicants appear or are produced before the Court in custody, the trial court shall comply with the order of this Court dated 09.12.2009.;