RAJESH DAYAL KHARE,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Alok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned Government Advocate for respondent no. 1 on Criminal Misc. Recall Application No. 1034061 of 2011.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for recall of the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 5729 of 2011, Makidunnisha and Sabiya Vs. State of U.P. and another, and further to dismiss the said case with costs. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has stated that the applicants were accused in Case Crime No. 3033 of 2008, u/s 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Cantt. District Gorakhpur, for an incident, which took place on 4,.12.2008. It is contended by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 that initially the applicant nos. 1 and 2 alongwith one Azra, wife of Akeel Ahmad, had filed Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No. 10817 of 2009, Sabiya and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, for quashing the proceedings of the case arising out of Case Crime No. 3033 of 2008, u/s 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Cantt. District Gorakhpur, and this Court vide order dated 14.5.2009 disposed of the aforesaid 482 petition with a direction that in case the applicants apply for the grant of bail within 15 days their bail applications shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, if possible on the same day. The aforesaid order dated 14.5.2009 passed by this Court has been filed as Annexure no. 1 to the affidavit accompanying the recall application (hereinafter referred to as the application). It is noteworthy that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 in the present case were applicant nos. 3 and 1 in the aforesaid 482 petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for O.P. No. 2 further contended that the applicants did not appear before the court pursuant to the aforesaid order of this court dated 14.5.2009 but filed another Criminal Misc. 482 Application No. 41524 of 2010, Smt. Saoiha Sarfaraz and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, without disclosing the fact that they had earlier filed one 482 petition no. 10817 of 2009. However, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 appeared in the aforesaid 482 petition no. 41524 of 2010 filed by the applicants and informed the Court that the applicants had earlier filed a 482 petition and therefore, the second 482 petition no. 41524 of 2010 was dismissed by this court with costs of Rs. 5000/- vide order dated 11.1.2011, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure no. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is contended by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 that pursuant to the order dated 11.1.2011 the applicants deposited Rs. 5000/- on 10.2.2011 in the office of the Registrar General of this Court.;