Allowed

Yogendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2018A227/3193/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders refusing release of a licensed firearm seized from the petitioner's nephew. The court held the firearm, being a secured license and properly recovered, could be released upon deposit of security by the petitioner and furnishing an undertaking for production during trial, quashing the lower court orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 12.3.2018 and 12.4.2018 quashed; firearm to be released on deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and undertaking of production.

Yogendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3193 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.3.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah and order dated 12.4.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Etawah.

¶6

Licensed fire arm of petitioner has been found in possession of his sister's son on account of which proceedings under the Arms Act have been initiated. Upon an application filed for release of the fire arm, the courts below have rejected the application on the ground that the fire arm is a case property.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decisions of this Court in Jagdamba Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1999 Lucknow Crl. Report 232 and Sarju Prasad Vs. State of U.P., 1990 Lucknow Crl. Report 173, in order to contend that petitioner undertakes to provide requisite security and also undertakes to produce the fire arm as and when it is required in connection with case, but it be released or else the possibility of fire arm itself getting destroyed or lost cannot be ruled out.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. appearing the State has submitted that adequate provisions be made so as to ensure production of fire arm before the court concerned at the time of trial of Case Crime No.119 of 2018.

¶9

From the materials brought on record, it is apparent that petitioner has a valid license of the fire arm and the same has not been misused. The only allegation is that the fire arm was recovered from his nephew who has no authority to keep the fire arm. Proceedings in trial, which has otherwise been initiated in 2013, might take long. Possibility of fire arm being misplaced or destroyed also cannot be discounted. In the event the petitioner undertakes to produce the fire arm as and when it is required in connection with the proceedings of the aforesaid case, there would be no difficulty in directing release of the Gun. In such circumstances, orders dated 12.4.2018 and 12.3.2018 cannot be sustained and are quashed.

¶10

The fire arm in question shall be released to the petitioner upon

¶11

his depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the court concerned, as surety, where the trial itself is pending. Petitioner shall further submit an undertaking to produce the fire arm as and when the same is required in connection with holding of trial. In the event such an undertaking is violated or the amount is not deposited, the protection granted shall stand withdrawn.

¶12

This petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.6.2018 Anil

Yogendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gorakh Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Anotehr

Kamlesh Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Pher Verma and 2 Others Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate,Shahganj and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Prashant Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another