S.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against order dated 27.8.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Saharanpur in criminal revision No. 275 of 2011 (Satya Pal Saini v. State of U.P. and others) arising out of order dated 13.5.2011 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Saharanpur in criminal case No. 688 of 2011 (State v. Rampal and others) under Sections 307,504,506 IPC, P.S. Titro, District Saharanpur.
(2.) IN the aforesaid criminal case, final report was submitted by the police. The complainant filed a protest petition. Learned Magistrate, on the basis of material available in the case diary, took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and summoned the instant revisionists to face trial under Sections 324, 504, 506 IPC. The complainant was not satisfied with the summoning order and he preferred a criminal revision No. 275 of 2011 on the ground that the accused persons fired at the victim with intention to kill and the Magistrate ought to have summoned the accused persons under Section 307 IPC also. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that though the injury was on thigh, site of injury is not the determining factor, but the intention of the accused must be seen and prima facie offence under Section 307 IPC is disclosed. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate for a fresh decision. The said order is impugned in this revision. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that three persons are said to have fired at the victim, but only a single gunshot wound of entry was found on the thigh of the victim, which was no dangerous to life and was not on vital part of the body. It was further submitted that after investigation, the police did not find any truth in the complainant's allegations and at the most, the case is covered by Section 324 IPC. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order and submitted that on facts and law, the order passed by Addl. Sessions Judge does not require any interference.
(3.) ULTIMATELY, the case is covered by Section 324 IPC and Section 307 IPC is to be decided by the trial Court after the evidence of the parties during trial. At the stage of summoning, only a prima facie case is to be seen. After hearing learned counsel for the revisionists and going through the material available on record, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, specially in view of the fact that three persons are said to have fired at the victim, who suffered only one gunshot injury on a non-vital part of the body, revision is disposed of with a direction that if the revisionists surrender before the Magistrate concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail be considered by the Courts below keeping in view a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290, as affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). If for any reason, disposal of the bail application on the same day is not possible, then the revisionists shall be released by the Courts below on interim bail till the final disposal of their bail application. For a period of three weeks, no coercive steps shall be executed against the revisionists.;