KUSHAL PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against chargesheet and the consequent summoning order dated 14.1.2008 issued to him by the Ist Special Magistrate, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 1086 of 2008 under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC.

(3.) THIS question of law is well settled by the Apex Court in its two judgments, namely, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T., Delhi and Anr. reported in : 2001 Cri. L.J. 1730 and Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. reported in : (2008) 1 SCC 474. The ratio of the two cases would be that in a situation like presently before this Court an interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not be in the interest of justice and the proper procedure would be to direct the applicant to apply for a fresh bail as he has to face a proceedings under the charge which is much severe than the one he was charged earlier. It would be handy to quote what the Apex Court had said in Hamida's case (supra) in paragraph 10: