Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40017 of 2024 Applicant :- Satyanarayan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Saran,Ram Murti Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kr. Soni,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. Ankit Saran, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicants in Court today is taken on record. Applicants Satyanarayan and 2 others who are charge sheeted accused have approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following relief: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/ set aside the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 1676/2024, (State Vs. Satyanarayan and Others) against the applicants whereby Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Dehat has proceeded to charge the accused applicants under section 302/34 IPC inplace of section 304 IPC. in Crime No. -136/2024. And it is further prayed that that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings as well as effect and operation of the impugned framing of charges dated 04.10.2024 and entire proceedings thereof pending before Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 1676/2024, (State Vs. Satyanarayan and Others) against the applicants otherwise the applicants shall suffer reparable loss and substantial injury. And/ or pass such further and other order direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and ircumstances of the case. On the matter being taken up, Court raised a pointed query to learned counsel for applicant as to whether the trial procedure has commenced before Court below or not. Learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that trial of applicants has already commenced and P.W.1 has deposed before Court below. In view of aforementioned subsequent development, since the trial of applicant has already commenced, subsequent to the framing of charge order passed by court below, therefore, the veracity of the framing of charge order cannot be examined by this Court at this belated stage. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court. The prayer prayed for by means of this application is accordingly is refused. The learned counsel for applicant then submits that applicants-2 and 3 have not been enlarged on bail by Court below. Their bail applications are pending before Court below. In view of aforementioned facts, it is provided that the Court below shall decide the bail application of applicants-2 and 3 within a period of one months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in the light of law laid by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Arshad Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad