Bail on same day

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2XX30 of 2010

Petitioner :- XXXX And Othes
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Dharmendra Singhal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,R.P. Dwivedi

Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
By means of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the FIR dated 24.10.2010 registered as case crime no. XXX of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323,504 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra. By order dated 20.11.2010 passed by this Court, the matter was referred to Allahabad High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre. The report of mediator dated 3.4.2011 indicates that parties are not willing for mediation, as such mediation has failed. Therefore, we proceed to hear the matter on merits.
The writ court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed.
Hence no ground exists for quashing the F.I.R.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioners move an application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for appearance of the petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cri.L.J.755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan vs. State of U.P. 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit, provided that the adjournment of hearing of the regular bail on one or more dates should not exceed a total period of one month.
It will also be in the discretion of the Sessions/Special Judge concerned to consider granting interim bail pending consideration of the regular bail on similar terms as mentioned herein above when and if the petitioners apply for bail before him.
For a period of three weeks from today or till the petitioners appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail (whichever is earlier), the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case crime.
In case the petitioners fail to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or they fail to cooperate with the investing officer during interrogation, it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for cancelling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.5.2011
Mt/
(Surendra Singh, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)
 

Post Mediation failure you will get above order from the court when the case is listed but your lawyer need to be present.

Is this the routine judgement???That means that HC never considers the merits of the case as the HC in not competent to conduct the case"The writ court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed".

But with this judgement, proceedings will be conducted at Local court, where the opposite party ,can influence the judiciary/public prosecuter/investigation officer.

Therefore the fate of the case is evident.....

What are the chances if husband files a TP.....Any tool to prevent the case getting referred back to trail court???

Dear Sanjeev,

This refers when FIR was registered. Is there a different judgement when there is complaint case. As there is no FIR or chargesheet, till date, against the accused????

No the order would be the same these are blanket orders Judges dont dictate these - if the mediation fails this is the general order which is drafted. The HC wont hear the facts of the case as the case cannot be primae-facie deemed to be fake so HC dont go into quashing at this stage.

I think you did not check locally about your case in a complaint case even the Magistrate would have directed the police to investigate and register a FIR. There would now be a FIR.

Dear Sanjeev,

Can you share few judgements where SC admitted TP by husband in 498a cases.

Here the opp party (wife) are very influential (have relatives in the judiciary/police) and husband lives almost 1000 kms. Moreover the place of marriage was in different states. To produce evidences 1000 kms far would be difficult. Can this be a valid ground for moving a TP??

There are very few success stories of TP of 498-a.

 

 

Regards,

 

Shonee Kapoor

harased.by.498a@gmail.com

Sorry Mr.Shonee, Transfer petitions are allowed on valid grounds and mostly grounds are valid.

In TP convinience of spouse is first priority.

convenience is another word for what is valid...am i correct

I wish to disagree with D & N here ..... In our Nation we give priority to the convenience of the spouse ..... nobody said it is valid ..... it's just a plus factor ......  

spouse means "husband or wife". Hope that explains.

Dear JSDN,

I agree that courts are inclined towards the convenience of spouse, but what if accused husband has a threat of life in contesting case at the place of wife? How can one contest if he cannot appear in that area??

the next question is - Usually how much time is taken to dispose off the TP/SLP in 498a/13(1) cases??