HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 396 of 2010 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Mr. Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the petitioners appears and submits that present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners- accused on being aggrieved by order dated 07.12.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 1448-A of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 152, 153A, 323, 320, 324, 332, 336, 356, 435, 436, 427, 504, 506, 188 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Brahmapuri, District Meerut, whereby the application for discharge has been rejected by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Criminal Revision No.611 of 2009 filed before the Sessions Court was also dismissed by order dated 15.12.2009, hence present petition. 2. Learned A.G.A. for the State appears and submits that matter pertains to police encounter wherein a mob of eight named and other accused formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and had fired at the police party while curfew was imposed and also damaged the public property. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the police. It is during the investigation that names of accused-petitioners have been figured out and the charge-sheet is submitted. He further submits that the matter is triable by Sessions Court. The accused- petitioners have filed an application for discharge before the Magistrate prior to committal of the case. He further submits that order dated 12.01.2010 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Singh Patel, Mohd Shamim Khan, Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate Akhlaq And Others .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) passed in the writ petition has also not been complied. Hence, the petition be dismissed. 3. This Court has taken into consideration rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 4. On query about compliance of previous order dated 12.01.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have never appeared before the Trial Court, as the proceeding of the case was stayed, qua the petitioners. Relevant portion of the order is reiterated below: "Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in criminal case no. 1448-A of 2009 shall remain stayed only in respect of present petitioners provided they appear before the court concerned and furnish personal bond and also an undertaking that they will appear as and when required by the court concerned. It is made clear that this interim order is applicable only in respect of the present petitioners." 5. The Magistrate by order dated 07.12.2009 has rejected the application for discharge on the ground that the petitioners-accused did not appear before the court and moved an application for bail, which is not in conformity to the directions issued by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.28310 of 2009 (Akhlaq and others Versus State of U.P. and another) in order dated 05.11.2009, wherein direction has been issued by this Court that bail prayer of the applicants be considered as expeditiously as possible. 6. The petitioners are subsequently aggrieved by the order passed in revision wherein Sessions Judge, Meerut by judgement and order dated 15.12.2009 has rejected the revision at the stage of admission, on the same ground and did not interfere in the order passed by the Magistrate. 7. The grounds of the accused for getting discharged in criminal case is based on the fact that the accused-petitioners being real brothers who have not been named in the F.I.R. lodged by the police personnel for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 152, 153A, 323, 320, 324, 332, 336, 356, 435, 436, 427, 504, 506, 188 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, though the accused-petitioners were not present on the place of incident nor CRLP No. 396 of 2010 2 were members of unlawful assembly. The main grievance of the petitioners is non-disposal of their discharge application on merits, which has been rejected merely on extraneous grounds. 8. This Court is of the view that petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court; move bail application in view of the previous orders passed by coordinate Bench of this Court and are at liberty to move discharge application, which would be disposed of at an early date. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not been arrested on account of stay of proceedings. The petitioners-accused want to join trial, but apprehending arrest, as such they seek their interested be protected till they file the bail application, hence, the accused-petitioners shall not be arrested for a period of 30 days. Prior to expiry of the aforesaid period, they should appear before the Trial Court and apply for bail. The bail application is to be disposed of considering the principles of law enumerated in the cases of Siddharth Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2022) 13 SCC 764, that deals with the requirement of arrest of the accused-petitioners who have not been arrested during investigation. 10. The Trial Court before disposal of bail application, shall also consider the release of petitioners on interim bail. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. October 14, 2025 MN/- CRLP No. 396 of 2010 3 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad