LAWS(ALL)-1993-7-48

HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On July 13, 1993
HARI SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant and learned State counsel.

(2.) THE applicant is accused in Case No. 319/9 of 1993, under Section 60 Excise Act, pending in the court of C.J.M. Moradabad. It is stated in para No. 2 of the affidavit that applicant's son Kishan Singh was tortured by the Excise Authorities and he died. The applicant lodged an F.I.R. against the Officers of the Excise Department of 6-9-1990. On the lodging of the F.I.R. a case was registered as Crime No 1374 on 1990 under Section 394, 325, 326, 218, 304 I.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the applicant the said case is being investigated by C.B C.I.D The present case under Excise Act is pending before Sri M.K. Bansal, C.J.M. Moradabad. It is stated in para No. 6 of the affidavit that on 29-4-1993 the applicant was ill and could not appear before the court of the C.J.M. Moradabad and made an application for adjournment accompanied by a medical certificate. It is further stated in the affidavit that the learned C.J.M. issued notice under Section 446 Cr, P. C. and also issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant and cancelled the bail of the applicant. Copy of the order dated 29-4-1993 is filed as Annexure 3 to the affidavit. Further case of the applicant is that the applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1993, in the Court of the Sessions in which stay was granted till the date fixed and bail was also granted. Copies of the bail order passed by the Sessions Judgi and the stay order have already been filed as Annexures 4 and 5 to the affidavit. It is stated in para 8 of the affidavit that the learned C.J.M. got annoyed and tried to circumvent the order of the learned Sessions Judge and again he cancelled the bail granted by thi Sessions Court and forfeited the bonds on 27-6-1993. Copy of the order dated 27-6-1993 is filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the entire circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order dated 27-5-1993 passed by the C.J.M. Moradabad, issuing warrant against the applicant and the subsequent order dated 10-8-1993, issuing non-bailable warrant and process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C, against the applicant and the warrant of realisation of the surety amount against the sureties of the applicant are liable to be set aside.