- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant? and learned A.G.A.
(2.) THE applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash? the charge-sheet dated 12.02.2008 laid in Case No. 857 of 2008 on which the learned? C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section under Section 29 of Arms Act, 1959, P.S. Sector 58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant? is that no offence against the applicant? is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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 relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 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. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant? has got a right of discharge under Sections? 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the proceedings of the aforementioned case? is refused.
(3.) HOWEVER, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicant? moves? an application for surrender before the court concerned within four weeks from today, the court concerned shall fix a date about ten days thereafter for the appearance of the applicant? and in the meantime release the applicant? on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and as far as possible also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the applicant? in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781.;