High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajan @ Rajjan Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 11833 of 2005  RD-AH 6431 (25 November 2005)
Hon'ble R.C.Deepak, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner was named in the FIR but the investigating officer exonerated him. He has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial. His submission is that four witnesses have been examined including the informant Daya Ram, Lekhpal. Their evidence do not guarantee that the conviction of the petitioner be recorded. Therefore, the summoning order is bad in law.
I have perused the FIR and the statements of the witnesses so recorded. The petitioner is not a stranger. He was named as an accused. Why he was exonerated, the reason best known to the investigation but so far as the spirit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is concerned, there is sufficient evidence to summon him.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition.
The petition stands dismissed.
However, in the event the petitioner puts in his appearance before the court below and makes an application for bail in Criminal Case no. 1150 of 2002, his bail application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as may be convenient in accordance with law as the person who have been charge sheeted, have already been released on bail. The trial court is hereby directed to proceed expeditiously with the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order,
Dt/- 25th November, 2005
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.