SUNIL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V. C. Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner, Sunil Agarwal, has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not be arrest the petitioner in case Crime No. 30 of 1992, under Sections 467/468/471/409/ 120-B/114, I. P. C. on the basis of a first information report lodged at Police-Station Manidharpur, Surat (Gujrat ). Thus, it is clear that the first information report, in respect of the crime, in question, has been lodged outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and further the petitioner has not challenged the first information report in this petition.

(3.) HOWEVER, it is necessary to point out that the petitioner is involved under Sections 457/668/471/120- B/114, I. P. C. Learned counsel for the petitioner very strongly urged that the bail was granted to the petitioner for 15 days by the Court below on a concession made on behalf of the petitioner and the case for bail was not at all considered on merits or in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the con cession was given to by the Court specially when the petitioner was in jail and in this view of the matter the learned counsel for the prtitioner has stated that the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, dated 15-4-1992 maybe suspended for a period of two weeks only to enable the petitioner to make a fresh bail application for appropriate orders. It will also be relevant to point out that the order dated 16-4-1992, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, has not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.