BISMILLAH SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

(2.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in this Court arraying the State of U.P., Sri Jiut Lal Nigam and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur as opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, with the prayer that the charge sheet submitted in Criminal Case No. 8167 of 1993, arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 1993, under Sections 392, 412 I.P.C., Police Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur against the applicants Bismillah Siddiqui and Arif Siddiqui be quashed.

(3.) AS per this petition, the applicants were detained by the police of police station Barhalganj on 14.5.1993 when they were proceeding on motorcycle from Ghosi. They were accosted by the police inside the police station. When the applicants were detained, then the brother of the accused Bismillah Siddiqui sent a telegram to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur on 17.5.1993 intimating him about illegal detention and also expressing apprehension of their being nominated in some false case. On the application of the accused persons moved in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, the police submitted report stating that both the accused persons were challaned in the said crime under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C. as two goggles, one foreign wrist watch and Rs.5975/- were recovered from them. The accused persons were subsequently granted bail by the Magisterial court on 21.5.1993. Thereafter the accused persons claimed the return of the recovered items by way of moving application in the court and the court vide order dated 28.5.1993 directed for release of those items in favour of the accused persons. The detention of the applicants between 14.5.1993 to 20.5.1995 as per the petition, was illegal and inexplicable. AS per the petition, the holding of test identification parade of the applicants was necessary but the same was not held. This has not only prejudiced the applicants but they were deprived of an opportunity on which hinged the very foundation of the prosecution case. It has further been averred in the petition that the statements of Yaqub and complainant Jiut Lal recorded during investigation would reveal that they had neither named the applicants nor claimed to have recognized them. The applicants are said to have been falsely implicated.