KAILASH NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR in case crime No. 724 of 2010, under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi. The writ Court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allega ­tions, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed. Hence, no ground exists for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.

(2.) HOWEVER , in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petition ­ers move an application for surrender before the Court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate con ­cerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for the appearance of the peti ­tioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the Court concerned con ­siders fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The Court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the Investigating Officer by the date fixed and also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioners in accor ­dance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (67) ACC-966 (SC) = 2009 (84) AIC 84 (SC) and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the ear ­lier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit.