KANTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard the applicants counsel.

(2.) THROUGH this application in revision the applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 11-4-1996 passed by IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etawah in Session Trial No. 282 of 1991 State of U. P. v. Manoj Kumar under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC, Police Station Ekdil district Etawah. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has summoned the applicants as accused in the aforesaid trial exercising powers under Sec. 319 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the applicants argued before me that the learned Session Judge has commit ted a gross error of law in exercising powers under Section 319 (1), Cr PC as involvement of both the applicants was not found during the investiga tion and police did not submit charge-sheet against them. It has also been argued that there is no prima facie evidence against the applicants.

(3.) THE learned counsel further states that applicant No. 2 has already been allowed bail before submission of charge-sheet and since he was not named in the charge-sheet, he has not appeared in the court. However, the applicant now apprehends that once he has been summoned as an accused by the court under Section 319 (1), Cr PC, he may be required to obtain a fresh bail. If the applicant is on bail, as alleged, he shall not be required to obtain a fresh bail nor he shall be required to execute fresh bail bonds, if the same have not been cancelled.