# Sheshnath Singh Revisionist v. Devendra Pratap Singh

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1817
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-04
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 126 of 2022
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sheshnath-singh-revisionist-v-devendra-pratap-singh-50269
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Order rejecting defendantrevisionist's
application
for
leave
to
defend
in
a
summary
suit-
under
challenge- Civil Revision- Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908- Summary suit under
Order XXXVII of the Code- Rules 2 and 3
of
Order XXXVII
of
Code-Course
of
summary suit after service of summonsRule 3(5) provides the manner in which
the leave to defend is to be granted-Leave
to defend cannot be sought by the
defendant at the stage when he enters
appearance in response to summons-next
step must be taken by plaintiff-obtain
summons
for
judgement-hence,
defendant's
application
for
leave
to
defend was premature-order of learned
trial judge rejecting the application for
leave to defend on merits-ought to be
substituted by an order rejecting that
application as premature-application for
leave to defend to be considered againrevision allowed. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
and 13)

HELD:
A reading of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code
shows
that
once
the
defendant
enters
appearance in response to the summons issued
in Form 4 of Appendix B to the Code, notice of
appearance is to be given by the defendant to
the plaintiff's Counsel, or if the plaintiff appears
in person, to the plaintiff himself, either by
notice delivered at or sent by a prepaid letter,
directed to the address of the plaintiff's pleader
or the plaintiff, as the case may be. Sub-rule (4)
of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code
postulates that after the defendant enters
appearance, the plaintiff is obliged to serve on
the defendant, summons for judgment in Form
4A set out in Appendix B to the Code. The
summons for judgement are to be made
returnable, not less than ten days from the date
of service. The summons for judgment are
required to be supported by affidavit, verifying
the cause of action and the amount claimed to
be due from the defendant. The statute also
requires the plaintiff to St.that in his belief, there
is no defence to the suit. It is upon service of
the said summons for judgment that within the
time period of ten days, the defendant can
apply for leave to defend the suit. Sub-rule(5) of
Rule 3 postulates that the leave prayed by the
defendant to be granted by the Court is
unconditional or upon such terms as the Court
may consider just. The two provisos appended
to sub-rule (5) are further guidance in the
matter to the Court how leave is to be granted
1818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and subject to what conditions. Those provisos
are not the subject matter of consideration in
this revision. (Para 8)

The crux of the issue here appears to be that
the learned Trial Judge refused the application
for leave to defend, made by the defendant at a
time when the stage for that kind of an
application had not yet arrived. This is so
because the plaintiff had not taken out any
summons for judgment. A reading of sub-rule
(4) and sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII
of the Code makes it evident that an application
for leave to defend can be made by a defendant
only when the plaintiff takes out summons for
judgement, complying with the conditions of
sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the
Code. It brooks little doubt that leave to defend
cannot be sought by the defendant at the stage
when he enters appearance in response to the
summon for appearance. The next step is to be
taken by the plaintiff by obtaining summons for
judgment. It is, thereafter, that the defendant
may, within the time permissible and in the
manner prescribed, apply for leave to defend.
Therefore,
in
this
case
the
defendant's
application for leave to defend was premature.
(Para 9)

The learned Trial Judge in refusing leave to
defend, acted without jurisdiction. If at all an
application for leave to defend had been made
at that stage by the defendant, it ought to have
been dismissed as premature, rather than on
merits, as done in the present case. (Para 10)

In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the
impugned order of the learned Trial Judge, to
the extent that sh

## Text

5 All. Sheshnath Singh Vs. Devendra Pratap Singh
1817
contents of the report of the Archaeological
Survey of India, thus assisting the Court to a
great extent in disposal of this case. Likewise,
this Court accords appreciation for the services
rendered by the learned Additional Advocate
General, Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi -
State of U.P.- and learned Chief Standing
Counsel - Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey - in
disposal of this case. Learned Senior Counsel
for the respondent no.4 Mr. Syed Farman
Ahmad Naqvi and his assisting counsel also
deserve appreciation for rendering useful help
to this Court in disposal of this case.

32. Let a copy of this order be
transmitted to the trial Judge/District Judge,
Varanasi,
forthwith
for
ensuring
compliance as above.

33. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1817
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Civil Revision No. 126 of 2022

Sheshnath Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
Devendra Pratap Singh ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Sri Ashok
Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Tej Bhan Singh, Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan

Civil Law - Order rejecting defendantrevisionist's
application
for
leave
to
defend
in
a
summary
suit-
under
challenge- Civil Revision- Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908- Summary suit under
Order XXXVII of the Code- Rules 2 and 3
of
Order XXXVII
of
Code-Course
of
summary suit after service of summonsRule 3(5) provides the manner in which
the leave to defend is to be granted-Leave
to defend cannot be sought by the
defendant at the stage when he enters
appearance in response to summons-next
step must be taken by plaintiff-obtain
summons
for
judgement-hence,
defendant's
application
for
leave
to
defend was premature-order of learned
trial judge rejecting the application for
leave to defend on merits-ought to be
substituted by an order rejecting that
application as premature-application for
leave to defend to be considered againrevision allowed. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
and 13)

HELD:
A reading of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code
shows
that
once
the
defendant
enters
appearance in response to the summons issued
in Form 4 of Appendix B to the Code, notice of
appearance is to be given by the defendant to
the plaintiff's Counsel, or if the plaintiff appears
in person, to the plaintiff himself, either by
notice delivered at or sent by a prepaid letter,
directed to the address of the plaintiff's pleader
or the plaintiff, as the case may be. Sub-rule (4)
of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code
postulates that after the defendant enters
appearance, the plaintiff is obliged to serve on
the defendant, summons for judgment in Form
4A set out in Appendix B to the Code. The
summons for judgement are to be made
returnable, not less than ten days from the date
of service. The summons for judgment are
required to be supported by affidavit, verifying
the cause of action and the amount claimed to
be due from the defendant. The statute also
requires the plaintiff to St.that in his belief, there
is no defence to the suit. It is upon service of
the said summons for judgment that within the
time period of ten days, the defendant can
apply for leave to defend the suit. Sub-rule(5) of
Rule 3 postulates that the leave prayed by the
defendant to be granted by the Court is
unconditional or upon such terms as the Court
may consider just. The two provisos appended
to sub-rule (5) are further guidance in the
matter to the Court how leave is to be granted
1818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and subject to what conditions. Those provisos
are not the subject matter of consideration in
this revision. (Para 8)

The crux of the issue here appears to be that
the learned Trial Judge refused the application
for leave to defend, made by the defendant at a
time when the stage for that kind of an
application had not yet arrived. This is so
because the plaintiff had not taken out any
summons for judgment. A reading of sub-rule
(4) and sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII
of the Code makes it evident that an application
for leave to defend can be made by a defendant
only when the plaintiff takes out summons for
judgement, complying with the conditions of
sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the
Code. It brooks little doubt that leave to defend
cannot be sought by the defendant at the stage
when he enters appearance in response to the
summon for appearance. The next step is to be
taken by the plaintiff by obtaining summons for
judgment. It is, thereafter, that the defendant
may, within the time permissible and in the
manner prescribed, apply for leave to defend.
Therefore,
in
this
case
the
defendant's
application for leave to defend was premature.
(Para 9)

The learned Trial Judge in refusing leave to
defend, acted without jurisdiction. If at all an
application for leave to defend had been made
at that stage by the defendant, it ought to have
been dismissed as premature, rather than on
merits, as done in the present case. (Para 10)

In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the
impugned order of the learned Trial Judge, to
the extent that she has proceeded to reject the
application for leave to defend the suit on
merits, is not sustainable. In the opinion of this
Court, the order of the learned Trial Judge
rejecting the application for leave to defend on
merits, ought to be substituted by an order
rejecting that application as premature. (Para
13)

Revision allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Sewa Ram Vs Firm Modaram Tulsiram, 2001
SCC OnLine Raj 424
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This civil revision is directed against
an order of Ms. Diksha Shree, learned
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-
03, Allahabad dated 21.11.2022 rejecting
the defendant-revisonist's application for
leave to defend in a summary suit.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,
learned
Counsel
appearing
for
the
revisionist and Mr. Tej Bhan Singh, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff-respondent.

3. The summary suit here instituted
under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') is
one to recover money due on several
cheques, said to have been issued by the
defendant in the plaintiff's favour, that were
dishonoured on presentation. The summary
suit was instituted on 13.09.2022. On
14.09.2022, summons in Form 4 of
Appendix B to the Code were issued to the
defendant for appearance. The summons
were made returnable on 29.09.2022.

4. A perusal of the order sheet shows
that on 29.09.2022, the Presiding Officer
was not available because she was away on
training. On the next date, i.e. 10.10.2022,
the Presiding Officer was on leave. On
17.10.2022, the plaintiff filed a copy of the
postal track along with an affidavit,
showing that the defendant had been served
on 23.09.2022 with the summons. The suit
was directed to come up on 29.10.2022
vide order dated 17.10.2022. Vide order
dated
29.10.2022,
service
upon
the
defendant was held sufficient and the suit
was adjourned to 07.11.2022. Later on, on
29.10.2022,
the
defendant
put
in
5 All. Sheshnath Singh Vs. Devendra Pratap Singh
1819
appearance through Counsel and moved an
application bearing paper no. 11C, saying
that
the
learned
Counsel
had
got
information from his client over telephone,
instructing him in the present suit. The
learned Counsel urged that he needs a copy
of the plaint, so that he can file a reply. The
suit was then adjourned to 01.11.2022 by
the subsequent order that was passed on
29.10.2022. On 01.11.2022, the defendant
moved an application marked as paper no.
12C along with an affidavit 13C, to which
was attached a vakalatnama from the
defendant, authorizing the learned Counsel
to appear and defend. The application 12C
sought leave to defend the suit. The
grounds on which leave was sought were
mentioned in the accompanying affidavit
paper no. 13C. The affidavit largely
disclosed for grounds the fact that the
defendant was undergoing treatment at the
District Hospital, Mau and advised bed
rest. Some papers relating to the treatment
were enclosed with the affidavit. The
defendant denied the service of summons at
his address and said that after coming to
know about the institution of this suit, he
had informed his learned Counsel, on the
basis of which the learned Counsel had
moved the application bearing paper no.
11C, the day he appeared.

5. It was further said in the affidavit
that the defendant came over to Allahabad
from Mau and moved the application
bearing paper no. 12C seeking leave to
defend. The plaintiff objected to both the
applications bearing paper no. 11C and
12C. It was made out that the defendant
was
served
with
the
summons
on
23.09.2022. The plaintiff urged that on
29.10.2022, the defendant had appeared
much beyond ten days of the service of
summons for appearance, and, therefore,
the suit ought to be decreed. It was also
said that the application paper no. 11C was
filed without a vakalatnama and beyond
the statutory period of ten days, rendering it
liable to be rejected. The suit was
adjourned on 01.11.2022 to 07.11.2022 and
it is on that date that the defendant applied
for leave to defend. The plaintiff also said
that the affidavit does not disclose any
ground for leave to defend at all. The
defendant has not denied the issue of the
cheques in question that are the basis of the
suit. The prayer, therefore, was that the
application for leave to defend in any case
ought to be rejected.

6. The learned Trial Judge, while
dealing with the defendant's applications
11C and 12C, held that the defendant had
not disclosed grounds for leave to defend in
his application 12C, nor anything about the
merits of the plaintiff's claim was said
there. It was not disclosed as to what was
the substantial defence to the plaintiff's
claim, on the foot of which leave to defend
may be granted. The affidavit filed in
support of the application 12C made out a
case for the defendant's absence. Therefore,
the learned Trial Judge, considering the
prayer in the application 11C, seeking
permission to appear in the suit in response
to the summons for appearance, decided to
exercise discretion conferred under subrule (7) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII to
condone the delay in the matter of
appearance and permitted the defendant to
appear. However, the learned Trial Judge,
finding that there was no dependable cause
indicated in the affidavit 13C filed in
support of the application 12C, rejected the
same, denying the defendant leave to
defend. It is against the order refusing leave
to defend that the defendant-revisionist has
come up.
1820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the
Code discloses the precise course that a
summary suit takes, after summons for
appearance have been instituted under Rule
2 of Order XXXVII of the Code. Rule 3 of
Order XXXVII of the Code reads:

"3. Procedure for the appearance
of defendant--(1) In a suit to which this
Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together
with the summons under rule 2, serve on
the defendant a copy of the plaint and
annexures thereto and the defendant may, at
any time within ten days of such service,
enter an appearance either in person or by
pleader and, in either case, he shall file in
Court an address for service of notices on
him.

(2) Unless otherwise ordered, all
summonses, notices and other judicial
processes, required to be served on the
defendant, shall be deemed to have been
duly served on him if they are left at the
address given by him for such service.

(3) On the day of entering the
appearance, notice of such appearance shall
be given by the defendant to the plaintiff's
pleader, or, if the plaintiff sues in person, to
the plaintiff himself, either by notice
delivered at or sent by a pre-paid letter
directed to the address of the plaintiff's
pleader or of the plaintiff, as the case may
be.

(4) If the defendant enters an
appearance, the plaintiff shall thereafter
serve on the defendant a summons for
judgment in Form No. 4A in Appendix B or
such other Form as may be prescribed from
time to time, returnable not less than ten
days from the date of service supported by
an affidavit verifying the cause of action
and the amount claimed and stating that in
his belief there is no defence to the suit.

(5) The defendant may, at any
time within ten days from the service of
such summons for judgment, by affidavit or
otherwise disclosing such facts as may be
deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend,
apply on such summons for leave to defend
such suit, and leave to defend may be
granted to him unconditionally or upon
such terms as may appear to the Court or
Judge to be just:

Provided that leave to defend
shall not be refused unless the Court is
satisfied that the facts disclosed by the
defendant do not indicate that he has a
substantial defence to raise or that the
defence intended to be put up by the
defendant is frivolous or vexatious:

Provided further that, where a
part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff
is admitted by the defendant to be due from
him, leave to defend the suit shall not be
granted unless the amount so admitted to be
due is deposited by the defendant in Court.

(6) At the hearing of such
summons for judgment,--

(a) if the defendant has not
applied for leave to defend, or if such
application has been made and is refused,
the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment
forthwith; or

(b) if the defendant is permitted
to defend as to the whole or any part of the
claim, the Court or Judge may direct him to
give such security and within such time as
may be fixed by the Court or Judge and
that, on failure to give such security within
the time specified by the Court or Judge or
to carry out such other directions as may
have been given by the Court or Judge, the
5 All. Sheshnath Singh Vs. Devendra Pratap Singh
1821
plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment
forthwith.

(7) The Court or Judge may, for
sufficient cause shown by the defendant,
excuse the delay of the defendant in
entering an appearance or in applying for
leave to defend the suit."

8. A reading of Rule 3 of Order
XXXVII of the Code shows that once the
defendant enters appearance in response to
the summons issued in Form 4 of Appendix
B to the Code, notice of appearance is to be
given by the defendant to the plaintiff's
Counsel, or if the plaintiff appears in
person, to the plaintiff himself, either by
notice delivered at or sent by a prepaid
letter, directed to the address of the
plaintiff's pleader or the plaintiff, as the
case may be. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of
Order XXXVII of the Code postulates that
after the defendant enters appearance, the
plaintiff is obliged to serve on the
defendant, summons for judgment in Form
4A set out in Appendix B to the Code. The
summons for judgement are to be made
returnable, not less than ten days from the
date of service. The summons for judgment
are required to be supported by affidavit,
verifying the cause of action and the
amount claimed to be due from the
defendant. The statute also requires the
plaintiff to state that in his belief, there is
no defence to the suit. It is upon service of
the said summons for judgment that within
the time period of ten days, the defendant
can apply for leave to defend the suit. Subrule(5) of Rule 3 postulates that the leave
prayed by the defendant to be granted by
the Court is unconditional or upon such
terms as the Court may consider just. The
two provisos appended to sub-rule (5) are
further guidance in the matter to the Court
how leave is to be granted and subject to
what conditions. Those provisos are not the
subject matter of consideration in this
revision.

9. The crux of the issue here appears
to be that the learned Trial Judge refused
the application for leave to defend, made
by the defendant at a time when the stage
for that kind of an application had not yet
arrived. This is so because the plaintiff had
not taken out any summons for judgment. A
reading of sub-rule (4) and sub-rule (5) of
Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code
makes it evident that an application for
leave to defend can be made by a defendant
only when the plaintiff takes out summons
for
judgement,
complying
with
the
conditions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of
Order XXXVII of the Code. It brooks little
doubt that leave to defend cannot be sought
by the defendant at the stage when he
enters appearance in response to the
summon for appearance. The next step is to
be taken by the plaintiff by obtaining
summons for judgment. It is, thereafter, that
the defendant may, within the time
permissible and in the manner prescribed,
apply for leave to defend. Therefore, in this
case the defendant's application for leave to
defend was premature.

10. The learned Trial Judge in refusing
leave to defend, acted without jurisdiction.
If at all an application for leave to defend
had been made at that stage by the
defendant, it ought to have been dismissed
as premature, rather than on merits, as done
in the present case.

11.
This
issue
came
up
for
consideration before the Rajasthan High
Court in Sewa Ram v. Firm Modaram
1822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tulsiram, 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 424,
where it has been observed:

"11. Thus, on a bare reading of
this language it is clear that one part of the
procedure envisaged is the one under Rule
2 wherein after receipt of summons for
appearance the defendant shall not defend
the suit unless he enters appearance and in
the event of his not entering appearance the
allegations in the plaint are to be deemed to
be admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to a
decree. In this view of the matter if the
defendant enters appearance as per Order
37 Rule 2, then this one stage of the
plaintiff to be entitled to decree is lost.
Obviously, therefore, thereafter the plaintiff
has to proceed further and after the
defendant
so
enters
appearance,
the
plaintiff is to serve on the defendant a
summon for judgment which has to be
returnable after a particular length of time,
it is to be supported by affidavit, verifying
the cause of action, and the amount
claimed, and also stating that in his belief
there is no defence to the suit. It is only and
only after the plaintiff does all this, that the
defendant attracts any obligation to apply
for leave to defend. Otherwise in absence
of any such service of summons for
judgment, in the scheme of things, the
defendant is very much entitled to forget
about the suit and just lie low. Not only this
in my opinion until and unless the
defendant is served with summons for
judgment in accordance with Order 37 Rule
3(4), the defendant even does not get any
right to even apply for leave to defend,
much less can such application at all be
considered on merits, by the learned trial
court. Until and unless the defendant is
served with the necessary papers including
affidavit of the plaintiff verifying the cause
of action and the amount claimed and also
deposing that in his belief there is no
defence to the suit, the defendant is not
required, rather even not entitled, to apply
for leave to defend, as until all this is done,
in the set up of things it cannot be said that
the defendant is at all even supposed to
defend any action."
(emphasis by Court)

12. It must be remarked at this stage
that Order XXXVII is a salutary procedure
that could curtail much avoidable criminal
litigation and bring quick justice, where
necessary. However, for some reason in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, this procedure has
historically been under-utilized, and, if this
Court may dare say, hardly ever utilized. It
is for this reason that the Presiding Officers
of the Subordinate Courts and the members
of the Bar are not very well acquainted
with the few basic technicalities of
procedure, that govern suits under order
XXXVII. This case is a classical example
of lack of that acquaintance on both sides.

13. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the impugned order of the
learned Trial Judge, to the extent that she
has proceeded to reject the application for
leave to defend the suit on merits, is not
sustainable. In the opinion of this Court, the
order of the learned Trial Judge rejecting
the application for leave to defend on
merits, ought to be substituted by an order
rejecting that application as premature.

14. This Court is informed that the
plaintiff has already applied for summons
for judgment, which have been served upon
on 02.12.2022, regarding which he has
taken steps for service through registered
post on 03.12.2022. Additionally, learned
Counsel appearing for the defendant has
also been served with the summons for
5 All. Shahil Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1823
judgement in Form 4A before the Trial
Court.

15. Learned Counsel for the defendant
appearing before this Court has made a
statement at the Bar that the defendant has
been served with summons for judgment.
Accordingly, the defendant will have ten
days time from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before the Trial
Court to apply for leave to defend.

16. The application for leave to defend,
when made, as directed above, shall be heard
and disposed of by the learned Trial Judge, in
accordance with provisions of sub-rule (5) of
Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code.
Needless to say that the application for leave,
if made, shall be decided with all promptitude
and the suit shall not be adjourned on any
pretext.
The
impugned
order
dated
21.11.2022 is set aside to the extent it refuses
leave to defend and it is ordered in the terms
indicated hereinabove.

17. This revision is allowed. Costs
easy.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1823
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 55033 of 2022

Shahil ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Inder Pal Singh Tomar, Anjali Singh Tomar,
Sri Gaurav Singh Tomar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973- Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 -Sections 328, 341, 363, 376 & 506 -
-The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3/4 - The
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 3(2)(5)- victim and her mother
declared hostile during trial- victim did
not support the prosecution case under
Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act-
conclusion or inference from evidence
shall be drawn- after considering the
evidence and attending circumstances-in
entirety- hostility of the victim in her
cross-examination in heinous offences like
rape, murder, etc.- no ground for bail- Bail
Application rejected.

HELD: It is well settled that the conclusion or
inference from the evidence of the witness shall
be drawn considering his/her examination-inchief,
crossexamination
as
well
as
reexamination in its entirety in the light of
attending facts and circumstances of the case
and not by picking out one or two sentence
from here and there. This Court in exercise of
power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this midstage of the trial which is going on does not
deem it appropriate to discuss and evaluate the
evidence of the victim and other prosecution
witnesses in detail as the allegation and defence
of the accused-applicant is still open to be urged
before the trial Court. However, this Court is of
the view that hostility of the victim in her crossexamination in heinous offences like rape,
murder, etc. is no ground for bail.

Bail application rejected. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Indra Pal Singh Tomar,
learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.
Virendra
Kumar
Maurya,
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
representing the State. As per office report
dated 21.02.2023, notice issued vide order
of this Court dated 24.01.2023 to the victim
as well as Child Welfare Committee has