Dismissed

Afzal Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018CRLP/34789/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner aged 85 with health issues sought quashing of FIR and temporary bail protection while withdrawing the petition. Court granted withdrawal with liberty to file regular bail, ordered protection from coercive action, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw petition with liberty to file regular bail; no coercive action for three weeks.

Afzal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 34789 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Afzal Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irfanul Huda,Nuzhat Parveen Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Irfanul Huda, counsel for petitioner and Sri Amit Sinha learned AGA for State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for quashment of FIR dated 31.08.2018 in respect of Case Crime No. 231 of 2018 under Sections 3/7 of E.C. Act, section 66(C) of Information Technology Act and section 420 of IPC, P.S. Delhi Gate,District, Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old man aged about 85 years suffering from various diseases including that of heart, hypertension and memory loss. He submits that the petitioner is finding it difficult to run the shop, but as the same is in his name, he is running it. He submits that if behind the back of petitioner, some one else has committed the offence, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. He submits that he is not pressing this petition insofar as it relates to quashment of the first information report. However, the petitioner may be permitted to file regular bail application before the trial court and till his application is decided, for a limited period, protective umbrella be given to the petitioner.

¶8

State Counsel has no objection insofar as withdrawal of the petition is concerned. He, however submits that discretion may be given to the trial court to decide the bail application in accordance with law.He further submits that since the petitioner is unable to run the shop, he should file an appropriate application for surrendering his license and the State will take appropriate steps for closure of the said shop.

¶9

In view of above, petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty.

¶10

Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any regular bail application by the petitioner before the competent Court of jurisdiction, the said Court shall decide the same as expeditiously in accordance with law considering all the aspects of the matter.

¶11

Till three weeks from today, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner.

¶12

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court to act in accordance with law.

¶13

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.12.2018 Shahid

Afzal Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal Ahmad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dela Singh Vs State

Bhaddi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rambresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rizwana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others