SHAUKIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Akhilesh Tripathi on behalf of the interveners Gaya Prasad Pandey and Ashutosh Pandey.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the intervener has filed an intervention application alleging that a first information report at Case Crime No. 208 of 2011 under Sections 323,504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act was lodged against the intervener Gaya Prasad Pandey, and the co-accused Babbey and Sonu. The said offences are not punishable with imprisonment above 7 years. Even the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) S.C./S.T. was only punishable with a maximum punishment of 5 years.

(3.) IN view of these submissions we direct Navin Kumar Tiwari, S.O. Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh and Prem Singh Dhania, Circle Officer District Pratapgarh to be present before this Court on 24.1.2012 for submitting their explanations as to why they have flouted the order dated 10.11.11 passed in the present writ petition (Shaukin Vs. State of U.P. and others) and why action may not be initiated against them. We must also express our displeasure at the casual and routine manner by which the concerned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to allow judicial remand of the accused on the application moved by the concerned police officer, without examining whether the pre-conditions for granting judicial remand laid down in section 41(1) (b) Cr.P.C and the decision of this Court in the present writ petition were disclosed, and in his failure to allow interim bail to the accused till such time as their bail application was finally considered.