Dismissed

Girish Agrawal v. Union of India through the Assistant Commissioner Customs (Preventive) Division and another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2018A482/40262/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant, the court held that disputed facts and malafide allegations are not adjudicable at this stage as no offence was clearly disclosed. The prayer for quashing was refused, but coercive action was stayed for 45 days if the applicant surrenders or files a bail application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the non-bailable warrant order refused; coercive action stayed for 45 days if applicant surrenders or files bail application.

Girish Agrawal Vs Union of India through the Assistant… — Customs and Excise | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40262 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Girish Agrawal Opposite Party :- Union Of India Through The Assistant Commissioner Customs (Preventive) Division And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushmita Raghav Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi,G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Si V.K.S.Rajwanshi, learned counsel for Union of India..

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the nonbailable-warrant order dated 27.09.2018, passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), District Varanasi, in Complaint Case No.941 of 2018 (Union of India Vs. Mahendra Kumar Bajpai and another) under Section 135 of Custom Act.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him within 45 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.11.2018

¶13

M.A.Ansari

Girish Agrawal v. Union of India through the Assistant Commissioner Customs (Preventive) Division and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Agrawal v. Union of India through the Assistant Commissioner Customs (Preventive) Division and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sangeeta @ Suneeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Rohtas Project Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and another

Smt. Sunayana Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Naresh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another