Qaiser Ansari and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

S.C. Agarwal, J.—In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to opposite party No. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This revision u/s 397/ 401, Cr. P.C. is directed against order dated 16.11.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10. Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 2012. State v. Qaiser Ansari and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 478 of 2009, P.S. Devaraniya, District Bareilly, whereby the trial court rejected the application 26B praying for discharge and directed framing of the charge against the revisionists and other co-accused.

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the allegations of causing injuries to the witnesses have been levelled against two other accused and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in directing framing of the charge against the revisionists.

Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order.

According to the prosecution case, on 20.7.2009 at about 8:30 a.m., the accused persons, named in the F.I.R., formed an unlawful assembly in front of the house of revisionist No. 1 Qaiser Ansari and members of such assembly committed maar-peet with Waseem, damaged his Tonga and on the exhortation of revisionist No. 1, Kaleem, Saleem and Ibrahim fired towards Raees and Waseem causing injuries.

It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and members of such assembly acted in pursuance of common object of such assembly. The revisionists are named in the F.I.R. and are alleged to be the members of such unlawful assembly. Whether the revisionist were, in fact, part of an unlawful assembly and took any part in the incident, has to be seen during trial. At this stage, appreciation of evidence is not permissible. On the basis of material available in the case diary, at this stage, it is not possible to say that no case is made out against the revisionists. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionists, I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate. When there are specific allegations against all the persons named in the F.I.R. and there are firearm injuries on the person of the injured, no case for discharge is made out. Application for discharge has been rightly rejected. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for any interference by this Court.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.