State of U.P v. Laxman Prasad and another) arising out of Case Crime No

Vs. Laxman Prasad and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 123 of 2020, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 120-B, 201, 202, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)-04, Varanasi, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as Registrar Kanoongo and however, he was not named in the FIR but during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter.

4. He further submits that as per FIR of the present case, named co-accused persons by committing forgery misappropriated the public fund and however, charge sheet was filed against them but along with them charge sheet against the applicant has also been filed.

5. He further submits that from the material available on record prima facie no case against the applicant under Sections 409,419,420,467,468 and 471 IPC is made out.

6. He next submits that however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2010 but charge sheet was filed in the year 2020 and thereafter summons were issued but applicant could not become aware about the same and when he came to know about pendency of the case then he approached this Court and filed anticipatory bail and this Court, however, directed him to appear before the court concerned and get regular bail but he did not choose to get regular bail and filed the instant application.

7. He further submits that applicant cannot be said to an absconder. He next submits that applicant is suffering with serious eye problem and his entire medical documents have been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, charge sheet pending against the applicant is liable to be quashed.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits that however, applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation his complicity was revealed and there is ample evidence against the applicant and therefore, charge sheet was filed against him.

9. Learned AGA further submits that along with the instant application applicant did not file any material, which was collected by Investigating Officer during investigation including the statements of the witnesses and, therefore, this Court cannot appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that no offence against him is made out.

10. He further submits that even prima facie applicant appears to be an absconder as charge sheet in the present matter had been filed against the applicant in 2020 and he filed instant application in July, 2025, i.e., after five years and from the order sheet it reflects that since the year 2024 warrants are being issued continuously against the applicant.

11. He further submits that however, there is no limitation in filing the application under Section 528 BNSS but the application under Section 528 BNSS /482 Cr.P.C. should be filed within reasonable time and as instant application has been filed after five years, therefore, it cannot be said that the same has been filed within a reasonable period of time and, therefore, on this ground also the instant application should be dismissed.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, applicant has challenged the charge sheet and entire proceedings pending against him but surprisingly along with the instant application no material including the statements of the witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer during investigation have been annexed and, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence against the applicant is made out.

14. Further, prima facie charges levelled against the applicant appears to be quite serious and it appears that being public servant he misused his position and along with other accused persons misappropriated public fund.

15. Further, however, applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused but merely on this ground proceedings pending against him and charge sheet filed against him cannot be quashed.

16. Further, instant application has been filed after five years from the date of filing the charge sheet and it appears, earlier also applicant approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. during investigation and this Court protected him till the submission of Police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and after submission of charge sheet in the year 2020 he again approached this Court and filed Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application but his application was disposed of with the direction that if he surrenders before the court concerned and applies for bail then his bail application shall be disposed of in accordance with law but it reflects that instead of appearing before the court concerned for getting regular bail pursuant to the order dated 10.4.2025, applicant filed the instant application.

17. Further, from the record it could not be reflected that applicant was not aware about the filing of the charge sheet which had already been filed in the year 2020. It also reflects that for the last more than a year non-bailable warrants are being issued against the applicant.

18. Further, however, there is no time limit prescribed in filing an application U/S 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. but such applications must be filed within reasonable time from the date of cause of action. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that delay of more than five years in filing the instant application shows laches on the part of applicant.

19. Further, however, as per applicant, he suffered with serious eye problem but merely on this ground proceeding pending against him and charge sheet filed against him cannot be quashed.

20. Therefore, from the discussions made above, in view of this Court, instant application is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 SKM

Vs. Laxman Prasad and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 123 of 2020, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 120-B, 201, 202, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)-04, Varanasi, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as Registrar Kanoongo and however, he was not named in the FIR but during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter.

4. He further submits that as per FIR of the present case, named co-accused persons by committing forgery misappropriated the public fund and however, charge sheet was filed against them but along with them charge sheet against the applicant has also been filed.

5. He further submits that from the material available on record prima facie no case against the applicant under Sections 409,419,420,467,468 and 471 IPC is made out.

6. He next submits that however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2010 but charge sheet was filed in the year 2020 and thereafter summons were issued but applicant could not become aware about the same and when he came to know about pendency of the case then he approached this Court and filed anticipatory bail and this Court, however, directed him to appear before the court concerned and get regular bail but he did not choose to get regular bail and filed the instant application.

7. He further submits that applicant cannot be said to an absconder. He next submits that applicant is suffering with serious eye problem and his entire medical documents have been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, charge sheet pending against the applicant is liable to be quashed.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits that however, applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation his complicity was revealed and there is ample evidence against the applicant and therefore, charge sheet was filed against him.

9. Learned AGA further submits that along with the instant application applicant did not file any material, which was collected by Investigating Officer during investigation including the statements of the witnesses and, therefore, this Court cannot appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that no offence against him is made out.

10. He further submits that even prima facie applicant appears to be an absconder as charge sheet in the present matter had been filed against the applicant in 2020 and he filed instant application in July, 2025, i.e., after five years and from the order sheet it reflects that since the year 2024 warrants are being issued continuously against the applicant.

11. He further submits that however, there is no limitation in filing the application under Section 528 BNSS but the application under Section 528 BNSS /482 Cr.P.C. should be filed within reasonable time and as instant application has been filed after five years, therefore, it cannot be said that the same has been filed within a reasonable period of time and, therefore, on this ground also the instant application should be dismissed.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, applicant has challenged the charge sheet and entire proceedings pending against him but surprisingly along with the instant application no material including the statements of the witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer during investigation have been annexed and, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence against the applicant is made out.

14. Further, prima facie charges levelled against the applicant appears to be quite serious and it appears that being public servant he misused his position and along with other accused persons misappropriated public fund.

15. Further, however, applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused but merely on this ground proceedings pending against him and charge sheet filed against him cannot be quashed.

16. Further, instant application has been filed after five years from the date of filing the charge sheet and it appears, earlier also applicant approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. during investigation and this Court protected him till the submission of Police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and after submission of charge sheet in the year 2020 he again approached this Court and filed Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application but his application was disposed of with the direction that if he surrenders before the court concerned and applies for bail then his bail application shall be disposed of in accordance with law but it reflects that instead of appearing before the court concerned for getting regular bail pursuant to the order dated 10.4.2025, applicant filed the instant application.

17. Further, from the record it could not be reflected that applicant was not aware about the filing of the charge sheet which had already been filed in the year 2020. It also reflects that for the last more than a year non-bailable warrants are being issued against the applicant.

18. Further, however, there is no time limit prescribed in filing an application U/S 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. but such applications must be filed within reasonable time from the date of cause of action. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that delay of more than five years in filing the instant application shows laches on the part of applicant.

19. Further, however, as per applicant, he suffered with serious eye problem but merely on this ground proceeding pending against him and charge sheet filed against him cannot be quashed.

20. Therefore, from the discussions made above, in view of this Court, instant application is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 SKM