Rajesh vs State of U.P.

A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the application dated 5.2.2009, which has been allegedly moved in the civil suit and about which facts have been stated in para 7 of this bail application.

It is contended that the Original Suit No. 397 of 208 is pending in which the said withdrawal application has been filed. The aforesaid facts therefore, dilute the theory of the prosecution. Even otherwise there would be a direct impact of the civil proceedings which may have a binding effect on the present dispute.

In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant, it would be appropriate to point out that in some cases, it has been held that a litigant has a right to withdraw his claim in a Court of law which is absolute. Reference may be made to the decisions of Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and Others Vs. Abdul Qadir and Others, Shiv Prasad Vs. Durga Prasad and Another, and Anil Dinmani Shankar Joshi and Deepak Dinmani Shankar Joshi Vs. Chief Officer, Panvel Municipal Council and Ramnik Khimji Makhecha, However, there is Anr. line of decisions which say that right to withdraw by a litigant is not absolute and for that reference may be made to the decisions of Kedar Nath and Others Vs. Chandra Kiran and Others, Vidhydhar Dube and Others Vs. Har Charan and Others, (This Division Bench judgment does not notice the case reported in Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and Others Vs. Abdul Qadir and Others, and Mahadkar Agency and Another Vs. Padmakar Achanna Shetty, There is yet Anr. decision which indicates that moving of an application before a Court of law, is sufficient to withdraw one''s claim before the matter is decided by a Court. The Courts order only governs the consequences. Reference be made to the decision of Sheikh Khalikuzzama and Ors. v. Sheikh Akhtaruzzama and Ors. 2004 (55) ALR 368 . The Apex Court has also rendered several decisions indicating as to when the Court grants permission to withdraw a claim. Reference be made to the decisions of Bakhtawar Singh another Vs. Sada Kaur and another, Ram Gopal Baheti v. Girdharilal Soni and Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 112 and K.S. Bhoopathy and Others Vs. Kokila and Others,

In view of the aforesaid position, the fact as to what turn the litigation pending in the original suit would ultimately take would determine the rights of the parties. Accordingly, the applicant deserves to be bailed out at this stage.

Let the applicant--Rajesh involved in Case Crime No. C5 of 2009, u/s 419/420/ 467/468/471/504/506, I.P.C., Police Station, Shohratgarh, District Siddharthnagar, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.