Hon'ble Surendra Singh, J.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A for the State.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the FIR registered at Case Crime No. 35 of 2013 under Sections 498-A, 313, 323 and 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, district Shahjahanpur.
The writ court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed.
Hence no ground exists for quashing the F.I.R
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 move an application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for appearance of the petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper, till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and as far as possible, also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioners in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati v. State of U.P2005 Cri.L.J 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Amrawati v. State of U.P (2009) 4 SCC and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Amrawati v. State of U.P2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit, provided that the adjournment of hearing of the regular bail on one or more dates should not exceed a total period of one month.
It will also be in the discretion of the Sessions/Special Judge concerned to consider granting interim bail pending consideration of the regular bail on similar terms as mentioned herein above when and if the petitioner nos. 1and 2 apply for bail before him.
For a period of three weeks from today or till the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail (whichever is earlier), the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case crime.
In case the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 fail to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or they fail to cooperate with the investigating officer during interrogation, it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for cancelling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits.
It is made clear that in case the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 fail to surrender/appear before the court concerned for the purposes of applying for bail within the given period, they shall not be entitled for extension of period.
However, in so far as the petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned and considering the nature of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the allegations made in the F.I.R, the provisions of section 157 Cr.P.C and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Amrawati v. State of U.P, it is directed that the petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the I.O during investigation.
With the above directions the writ petition is finally disposed of.