SUDESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu, J. In this case Sri S. K. Agrwal has put in appearances on behalf of the informant Ashok Kumar. He does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and said that he would like to oppose the application even at the submission stage.

(2.) SRI Anup Ghosh, learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that once the matter was resting only under Section 337, I. P. C. the Magistrate was not justified in summoning the applicant under Section 307, I. P. C. In this connection it was further argued that the applicant had been enlarged on bail by the Magistrate concerned under Section 337, I. P. C. A perusal of the order dated 21-2-1990 indicates that even though the police had filed a charge sheet under Section 337, I. P. C. the Magistrate had sum moned the applicant under Section 307, IPC on the basis of material existing in the police papers filed with the charge sheet. It further appears that the F. I. R. had been taken down under Section 307, I. P. C. at P. S. Chapprawli against case crime No. 135 of 1990.

(3.) SRI Anup Ghosh then argued that if the applicant is not allowed time to take a bail application under Section 307, I. P. C. he may be arrested unnecessarily inasmuch as he has already enjoyed liberty under Section 337, I. P. C. in the same crime number.