Anand Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P.

V.K. Chaturvedi, J.—This revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2001 passed by II Ird A.C.C.M., Kanpur Nagar, allowing the application of the prosecution and fixing 30.5.2001 for committal of the case u/s 395, I.P.C.

Heard Sri M. S. Negi, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. It is contended that from the first information report as well as statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161, Cr. P.C., no offence u/s 395, I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists and further contended that on account of business rivalry, opposite party lodged a first information report against the revisionists. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted only under Sections 147, 452, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and not u/s 395, I.P.C. As such, impugned order be set aside.

After hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the entire materials on record, during the trial of Case No. 2859 of 1998, trial court recorded the statement of Manish Kumar Gupta. In his statement, he has stated that in alleged incident revisionists Anand Kumar Gupta and Ravindra have taken Rs. 1,250 from the purse of Girish and a wrist watch was also snatched from the hand of Manish Kumar Gupta. After his statement, an application was moved by the prosecution to commit the case to the Court of Sessions as prima facie, an offence u/s 395, I.P.C. is disclosed against the revisionists, after hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution as well as counsel for the accused persons, impugned order has been passed, in the opinion of this Court, impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity and impropriety. The revision is accordingly dismissed.

After this order, Mr. Negi, learned Counsel for the revisionists argued that the revisionists were granted bail in Case Crime No. 125 of 1998 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C., further argued that if the case is committed to Court of Sessions u/s 395, I.P.C., then again they shall be sent to jail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the revisionists Anand Kumar Gupta and Ravindra Gupta appear/surrender before the trial court on the next date fixed, i.e., 30.5.2001 in pursuance of the order dated 27.4.2001, they will be allowed to continue on bail on furnishing fresh bond for the offence u/s 395, I.P.C. as they were on bail in the case crime mentioned above and have not misused the liberty of bail. It is accordingly directed that the II Ird A.C.C.M., Kanpur, shall accept fresh bail bonds for the offence mentioned above and the revisionists shall continue to be on bail.