# Shyam Babu Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 735
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 1319 of 2023
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shyam-babu-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49737
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Sections 437 & 439- Criminal Misc.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C No. 18472 /
2022 was disposed of by a co-ordinate
bench of this Court on the request of
learned counsel for the applicant therein
on his undertaking that he shall surrender
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the Trial Court within three weeks
from the date of the said order and file an
appropriate application which shall be
decided in terms of the judgement passed
in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil and
for a period of three weeks the nonbailable warrants issued against him were
directed to be kept in abeyance. The
accused
-
applicant
then
filed
an
application for bail through his lawyer
which was disposed of by the Trial Court
vide order dated 07.12.2022 on the
ground that the accused has not filed any
application for surrender and is not
personally/physically present in Court- A
bail application would not lie unless the
accused is in custody- The filing of a bail
application
through
lawyer
is
not
sufficient
personal
presence
of
the
applicant in Court and the Court cannot
proceed to hear and decide the same if he
is not physically / personally present
before it. The situation is different in case
of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C.
as
the
same
lies
on
an
apprehension of arrest.

Settled law that a bail application will not be
maintainable unless the accused is in custody
and no bail application will lie through a lawyer
as the same will not amount to the personal
presence of the accused before the court. (Para
23)

Criminal Application rejected. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

2 All. Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
735
thus, the impugned summoning order has
been passed by the magistrate after
applying judicial mind.

10. I have heard learned counsel for
the applicants and learned AGA appearing
for the State and perused the record.

11. From bare perusal of the
summoning order dated 18.2.2021 as well
as statements of the opposite party no.2 and
other witnesses recorded U/s 200 & 202
CrPC, it emerges that no inquiry has been
done by the magistrate prior to issuance of
process and even the magistrate did not
direct the police officer for investigation in
the matter. While passing the impugned
summoning order by the magistrate, he did
not apply his judicial mind and in
summoning order the magistrate indicated
that due to incident the wife of the
complainant had got injury, but this is not
the case of the prosecution. Thus, on this
ground the summoning order passed by the
magistrate is bad in law.

12. Emphasis was also laid that since
the proceedings under Sections 200 is qua
an inquiry proceeding under Section 202
(1) and therefore if a Magistrate has
proceeded
or
inquired
during
the
investigation under Sections 200 and 202
of Cr.P.C., separate proceeding for inquiry
or investigation is not required. In the
instant matter, neither the Magistrate in the
proceeding under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. tried to inquire regarding the issue
of territorial jurisdiction nor he has
separately done any inquiry or directed for
any investigation.

13. This Court is of the considered
opinion that it is a settled law that if a thing
is to be done in a manner prescribed in a
statue, then that has to be done in the same
manner not otherwise. In the instant matter,
it is, prima facie, a case where the mandate
of provision of Section 202 (1) of Cr.P.C.
has clearly been violated and thus, the
order impugned is not tenable.

14.

Consequently,
the
instant
application is allowed and the impugned
summoning order dated 18.2.2021 passed
in the Complaint Case No. 1571 of 2019 as
well as the revisional order dated 19.9.2022
is hereby set aside.

15. Learned Magistrate is hereby
directed to pass a fresh summoning order
within a period of two months from the
date of production of this order before him
in the light of observations made herein
above.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 735
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1319 of 2023

Shyam Babu Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms. Mamta Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Amit Daga

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Sections 437 & 439- Criminal Misc.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C No. 18472 /
2022 was disposed of by a co-ordinate
bench of this Court on the request of
learned counsel for the applicant therein
on his undertaking that he shall surrender
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the Trial Court within three weeks
from the date of the said order and file an
appropriate application which shall be
decided in terms of the judgement passed
in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil and
for a period of three weeks the nonbailable warrants issued against him were
directed to be kept in abeyance. The
accused
-
applicant
then
filed
an
application for bail through his lawyer
which was disposed of by the Trial Court
vide order dated 07.12.2022 on the
ground that the accused has not filed any
application for surrender and is not
personally/physically present in Court- A
bail application would not lie unless the
accused is in custody- The filing of a bail
application
through
lawyer
is
not
sufficient
personal
presence
of
the
applicant in Court and the Court cannot
proceed to hear and decide the same if he
is not physically / personally present
before it. The situation is different in case
of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C.
as
the
same
lies
on
an
apprehension of arrest.

Settled law that a bail application will not be
maintainable unless the accused is in custody
and no bail application will lie through a lawyer
as the same will not amount to the personal
presence of the accused before the court. (Para
23)

Criminal Application rejected. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Satendra Kumar Antil Vs CBI & anr., (2021)
10 SCC 773 (cited)

2. Aman Preet Singh Vs C.B.I. thru Director, AIR
2021 SC 4154 (cited)

3. Niranjan Singh Vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559

4. Sunita Devi Vs St. of Bih. (2005) 1 SCC 608

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. List revised.

2. Heard Ms. Mamta Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Daga,
learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2
and Mr. B. B. Upadhyay learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.

3. The name of Mr. Amit Daga,
Advocate is printed in the cause-list as the
learned counsel for opposite party No.2.
His Vakalatnama is not on record which he
states to have filed in the office on
16.01.2023. The office is directed to trace
out the same and place it on record and
make a note in the order sheet about it.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the applicant states that due to
inadvertence, an order dated 19.11.2022
which was to be filed as Annexure 8 to the
affidavit has been wrongly filed as the
same should have been the order of the said
date passed in Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18472 / 2022 (Shyam
Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & another).

5. Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for
the Opposite Party No. 2 has produced
before the court three orders which are
taken on order and are:

(i) Order dated 19.11.2022 passed
in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. No. 11061 / 2022 (Shyam Babu
Sharma & another Vs. State of U.P. &
another),

(ii)
Order
dated
25.02.2022
passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1425 /
2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of
U.P. & another); and

(iii)
Order
dated
19.11.2022
passed in Criminal Misc. Application U/S
2 All. Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
737
482 No. 18472 / 2022 (Shyam Babu
Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & another).

6. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the
following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to allow this application and to
quash the impugned order dated 07.12.2022
passed by learned court of Additional Civil
Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Mathura
in Case Crime No. 229/2019 (State Vs.
Rameshwar) under Section 406 IPC, Police
Station- Goverdhan, District Mathura.

May further be pleased to stay the
operation and effect of impugned order dated
effect and operation of the aforesaid order dated
07.12.2022 passed by learned court of
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) /
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.
2, Mathura in Case Crime No. 229/2019 (State
Vs. Rameshwar) under Section 406 IPC, Police
Station- Goverdhan, District Mathura during
the pendency of the present application."

7. The dispute in the present case which
crops up in the present case and is to be decided
is in a narrow compass and to be crystallized is
whether the filing of a bail application through
lawyer is sufficient personal presence of the
applicant in Court or not and the Court could
proceed to hear and decide the same even
though he is not physically / personally present
before it in view of sub - para (e) of para 3 of
the judgement in the case of Satendra Kumar
Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and Anr. : (2021) 10 SCC 773.

8. The facts of the case being the
prosecution case are not been dilated as the
same have no relevance in the present
matter. Reference are being given to only
the facts which relate to the present petition
for the prayers and the issue as stated
above.

9. The applicant filed a Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. 18472 /
2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of
U.P. and another) for quashing of the order
dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2,
Mathura. The said petition was heard and
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the applicant after arguing it for some time,
on instructions, submitted that the applicant
seeks some time to appear before the trial
Court and requested that non-bailable
warrant issued against him be kept in
abeyance for a period of three weeks. The
said petition stood disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court considering
the undertaking given by the applicant
directing that the non-bailable warrant
issued against him be kept in abeyance for
a period of three weeks as a one time
measure and it was further directed that in
the
meanwhile,
the
applicant
shall
surrender before the trial Court and file
appropriate application and the trial Court
was directed to decide the same in terms of
judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 773 if there is no
other legal impediment. The said order is
extracted here-in-below:-

"1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Hridai Narain Pandey, learned counsel for
applicant, learned AGA for State and Sri
Amit Daga, Advocate for Opposite Party
No. 2.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
quashing of order dated 13.06.2022 passed
by
Additional
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)/
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 2, Mathura in
Criminal Case No. 21925 of 2021 (196/21),
arising out of Case Crime No. 0229 of
2019, under Sections 406, 420, 409 IPC,
Police
Station
Govardhan,
District
Mathura.

3.
Learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing for applicant, after arguing for
some time, on instruction, submits that
applicant seek some time to appear before
Trial Court and requested that nonbailable warrant issued against him be kept
in abeyance for a period of three weeks
from today.

4. Learned A.G.A. appearing for
State and Sri Amit Daga, Advocate for
Opposite Party No. 2, have no objection
against the aforesaid prayer.

5. Accordingly the prayers made
in this application are rejected. However,
considering the undertaking given by
applicant, the non-bailable warrant issued
against him is kept in abeyance for a
period of three weeks from today, as a one
time measure. Meanwhile, applicant shall
surrender before Trial Court and file
appropriate application and Trial Court is
directed to decide the same in terms of the
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation and another, (2021) 10
SCC 773 if there is no other legal
impediment. In case of default, Trial Court
is at liberty to execute non-bailable
warrant in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid directions,
this application is disposed of."

10.

Another
Criminal
Misc.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11061 /
2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma and another Vs.
State of U.P. and another) was filed which
is stated to be against the charge-sheet
which was dismissed as not pressed vide
order dated 19.11.2022.

11. An anticipatory bail being
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1425 /
2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of
U.P. and another) was filed before this
Court which stood rejected vide order dated
25.02.2022 passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.

12. Subsequently, in compliance of
the order dated 19.11.2022 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. No. 18472 / 2022, the applicant
filed a bail application before the trial
Court (although the copy of the same has
not been annexed with the present petition)
but the same stood disposed of vide order
dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division / Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2, Mathura,
with the observation that the accused
Shyam Babu Sharma has filed the bail
application through his lawyer, he has not
filed any application for surrender and
neither is he present personally in the court.
As per the directions of the Apex Court in
the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, he is
directed to appear personally before the
court at the time of hearing of his bail
application and as such the said bail
application was disposed of.

Present petition under section 482
Cr.P.C. has thus been filed against the said
order dated 07.12.2022 which is impugned
herein.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant
has argued that the order dated 07.12.2022
passed by the trial court is illegal and
2 All. Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
739
arbitrary inasmuch as the presence of the
applicant was there before the said court
through his lawyer who had appeared and
had filed his bail application. It is argued
that the compliance of the order dated
19.11.2022 of this Court passed in 482
Cr.P.C. petition was done as a bail
application was filed through lawyer and as
such, the same was sufficient of appearance
of the applicant before the said court.
Learned counsel has placed before the
court judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and
Anr. : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and while
placing paragraph 3 of the same argued that
amongst the categories / type of offences
the offence of the present matter falls in
Category A which is an offence punishable
with imprisonment of seven years or less
and not falling under category B & D.
Further while placing Category A in the
said paragraph learned counsel has placed
sub - para (e) of the same which reads as
following:-

"(e) Bail applications of such
accused on appearance may be decided
without the accused being taken in
physical custody or by granting interim
bail till the bail application is decided."

It is argued that the directions of
the bail applications to be decided clearly
goes to show that it is mentioned therein
that bail applications of such accused on
appearance may be decided without the
accused being taken in physical custody
and in the present case accused had
appeared before the trial Court as is
evident from the fact that he was
represented through his lawyer and as
such his personal/physical presence was
not needed. It is further argued while
reading further in the same that even the
Apex Court has held that such bail
application may be decided without the
accused being taken into physical custody
which would go to mean that surrender is
not required.

14. Learned counsel has further
placed before the court the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet
Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : AIR
2021 SC 4154 and while placing paragraph
11 of the same has argued that it has been
held in the same that it is appropriate that
the accused is released on bail and the
circumstances of his having not been
arrested during investigation or not was
produced in custody is itself sufficient to
release him on bail. It is further argued
while placing the same that it has been held
in the said judgment that if a person has not
been arrested during investigation then to
suddenly direct his arrest and to be
incarcerated merely because charge-sheet
has been filed would be contrary to the
governing principle for grant of bail and the
situation in the present case is alike as the
applicant has filed a bail application and is
represented through lawyer before the court
and, as such, his presence physically is not
needed and further since he was not
arrested during investigation and had cooperated in the investigation, the said
directions of the Apex Court would be of
help to the applicant. It is argued that the
present offence is punishable with less than
seven years. The presence of the applicant
is not required at the time of hearing of bail
application. The trial court should have
decided the bail application which has been
filed through counsel of the applicant
without pressing for his physical/personal
presence before it. Therefore, the impugned
order is bad in the eye of law and as such,
deserves to be set aside and appropriate
directions be issued to the trial court to
decide the bail application without the
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
personal and physical presence of the
applicant in the court.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for
opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer
made in the petition and also the arguments
so advanced by the counsel for the
applicant and submitted that the trial court
has not committed any error in passing the
impugned order. It has not overstepped its
jurisdiction and the settled law while
passing the impugned order. It is argued
that the bail of an accused has to be heard
necessarily in his presence before the trial
Court. Personal/physical presence of the
accused at the time of hearing of the bail
application is a must and a pre-condition
for deciding the bail of an accused by the
trial court. It is argued that even in the case
of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) in
paragraph 3 in Category A in sub - para (e)
it is specified that bail application of such
accused on appearance may be decided.
This leaves with no doubt but to only a
rational
conclusion that the physical
presence of the accused is needed, the same
cannot be through his lawyer. The only
rider is that the same may be decided
without him being taken into physical
custody but the presence of the accused at
that point of time is required and is a must.
It is argued that further in the order dated
19.11.2022 passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this court in Criminal Misc.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18472 /
2022 the undertaking of the learned counsel
for the applicant was to the effect that he
seeks some time to appear before the trial
Court and as such the matter was disposed
of on the said undertaking which has also
been observed in paragraph 5 of the same.
It is argued that even in the said paragraph,
there is a specific direction that the
applicant shall surrender before the trial
court which would mean that he shall
appear personally and physically before the
trial Court. It is further argued that the
applicant is avoiding appearance before the
trial court which is evident from the fact
that this is the third application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. being filed by him. In
the meantime, even his anticipatory bail
application stood rejected by this Court
which was filed after filing of charge-sheet.
It is argued that looking to the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, the
present application is devoid of any merit
and deserves to be dismissed.

16. Learned AGA for the State has
also adopted the arguments of learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

17. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, perusing the records and the law
on the issues, it is evident that the Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C No. 18472
/ 2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of
U.P. and another) was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated
19.11.2022 on the request of learned counsel
for the applicant therein on his undertaking
that he shall surrender before the Trial Court
within three weeks from the date of the said
order and file an appropriate application
which shall be decided in terms of the
judgement passed in the case of Satendra
Kumar Antil and for a period of three weeks
the non-bailable warrants issued against him
were directed to be kept in abeyance. The
accused - applicant then filed an application
for bail through his lawyer which was
disposed of by the Trial Court vide order
dated 07.12.2022 on the ground that the
accused has not filed any application for
surrender and is not personally/physically
present in Court.

18. Section 437 Cr.P.C. relates to
grant of bail by courts other than High
2 All. Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
741
Court and a Court of Sessions whereas
Section 439 Cr.P.C. applies to High Court
and a Court of Session.

19. The person who is an accused of
any non - bailable offence when is arrested
or detained without warrant or is brought
before a court, may be released on bail as
per Section 437 Cr.P.C.

20. The issue involved in the present
matter in no more res-integra.

21. In the case of Niranjan Singh Vs.
Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote : (1980) 2
SCC 559 it has been held that a bail
application would not lie unless the
accused is in custody. It has been held as
follows:

"6. Here the respondents were
accused of offences but were not in
custody, argues the petitioner so no bail,
since this basic condition of being in jail is
not fulfilled. This submission has been
rightly rejected by the courts below. We
agree that, in one view, an outlaw cannot
ask for the benefit of law and he who flees
justice cannot claim justice. But here the
position is different. The accused were not
absconding
but
had
appeared
and
surrendered before the Sessions Judge.
Judicial jurisdiction arises only when
persons are already in custody and seek the
process of the court to be enlarged. We
agree that no person accused of an offence
can move the court for bail under Section
439 CrPC unless he is in custody.

7. When is a person in custody,
within the meaning of Section 439 CrPC?
When he is in duress either because he is
held by the investigating agency or other
police or allied authority or is under the
control of the court having been remanded
by judicial order, or having offered himself
to the court's jurisdiction and submitted to
its orders by physical presence. No lexical
dexterity nor precedential profusion is
needed to come to the realistic conclusion
that he who is under the control of the court
or is in the physical hold of an officer with
coercive power is in custody for the
purpose of Section 439. This word is of
elastic semantics but its core meaning is
that the law has taken control of the person.
The equivocatory quibblings and hide-andseek niceties sometimes heard in court that
the police have taken a man into informal
custody but not arrested him, have detained
him for interrogation but not taken him into
formal
custody
and
other
like
terminological dubieties are unfair evasions
of the straightforwardness of the law. We
need not dilate on this shady facet here
because we are satisfied that the accused
did physically submit before the Sessions
Judge and the jurisdiction to grant bail thus
arose.

8. Custody, in the context of Section
439, (we are not, be it noted, dealing with
anticipatory bail under Section 438) is physical
control or at least physical presence of the
accused in court coupled with submission to the
jurisdiction and orders of the court."

22. Further in the case of Sunita Devi Vs.
State of Bihar : (2005) 1 SCC 608 it has again
been held that a bail application would not lie
unless the accused is in custody. It has been
held as follows:

"14. The crucial question is when is a
person in custody, within the meaning of
Section 439 of the Code? When he is in duress
either because he is held by the investigating
agency or other police or allied authority or is
under the control of the court having been
remanded by judicial order, or having offered
himself to the court's jurisdiction and submitted
to its orders by physical presence. No lexical
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed
to come to the realistic conclusion that he who
is under the control of the court or is in the
physical hold of an officer with coercive power
is in custody for the purpose of Section 439.
The word is of elastic semantics but its core
meaning is that the law has taken control of the
person. The equivocatory quibblings and hideand-seek niceties sometimes heard in court that
the police have taken a man into informal
custody but not arrested him, have detained him
for interrogation but not taken him into formal
custody and other like terminological dubieties
are unfair evasions of the straightforwardness of
the law.

15. Since the expression "custody"
though used in various provisions of the Code,
including Section 439, has not been defined in
the Code, it has to be understood in the setting
in which it is used and the provisions contained
in Section 437 which relate to jurisdiction of the
Magistrate to release an accused on bail under
certain
circumstances
which
can
be
characterised as "in custody" in a generic sense.
The expression "custody" as used in Section
439, must be taken to be a compendious
expression referring to the events on the
happening of which the Magistrate can
entertain a bail petition of an accused. Section
437 envisages, inter alia, that the Magistrate
may release an accused on bail, if such accused
appears before the Magistrate. There cannot be
any doubt that such appearance before the
Magistrate must be physical appearance and the
consequential surrender to the jurisdiction of the
court of the Magistrate.

16. In Black's Law Dictionary by
Henry Campbell Black, MA (6th Edn.), the
expression "custody" has been explained in the
following manner:

"The term is very elastic and may
mean
actual
imprisonment
or
physical
detention.... Within statute requiring that
petitioner be ''in custody' to be entitled to federal
habeas corpus relief does not necessarily mean
actual physical detention in jail or prison but
rather is synonymous with restraint of liberty. ...
Accordingly, persons on probation or parole or
released on bail or on own recognizance have
been held to be ''in custody' for purposes of
habeas corpus proceedings.""

23. From the above authorities it is clear
that for maintaining an application for bail the
accused has to be in custody. The filing of a bail
application through lawyer is not sufficient
personal presence of the applicant in Court and
the Court cannot proceed to hear and decide the
same if he is not physically / personally present
before it.

The situation is different in case of
anticipatory bail filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C. as the same lies on an apprehension
of arrest.

24. Thus from the above discussion and
in view of the law on the issue, no case for
interference is made out. The order impugned
dated 07.12.2022 is a just, proper and legal
order calling for no interference. The present
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid
of any merit and is thus dismissed.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 742
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Application U/S 482. No. 21765 of 2022

Sunil & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sheshadri Trivedi