SHIV KANT TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) THE proceedings in criminal case, State v. Shiv Kant Triapathi under Section 110/111 Cr. P.C. pending in the Court of Additional City Magistrate II, Kanpur Nagar has been challenged in this application and also a prayer is for quashing the order dated 6 -8 -2005 whereby the applicant has been given a notice to show -cause that why he should not be required to furnish personal bonds for his good behaviour for a period of three years and also two sureties for an amount of Rs.50,000/ - each. Only objection raised by Counsel for the applicant is that impugned order has been passed without application of mind on a printed format and notice suffers from vagueness and ambiguous, therefore, proceeding on the basis of said notice is a nullity. Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions of this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2002 (43) ACC page 627. A notice simply states that the applicant is habitual offender and causes harassment to the general public. The witnesses from the public refrain from deposing against him on account of fear. In the circumstances, he should not be allowed to roam freely and mix with the general public. A copy of the notice has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Aurangzeb and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2004 (50) ACC page 734. Paragraph of the said decision is quoted below: