Partly allowed

Ankit Singh @ Tulsi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2019A482/36261/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the prayer to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings. While no offence was found to be obviously non-existent, the disputed facts cannot be adjudicated with cumulation of evidence. The applicant was granted a 30-day reprieve without coercive action to appear and surrender for bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicant granted 30 days to surrender for bail; no coercive action during this period.

Ankit Singh @ Tulsi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36261 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Singh @ Tulsi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.01/2019 dated 5.9.2019 as well as the cognizance taking order dated 9.9.2019 as well as the criminal proceedings of Case No.1383/IX/2019 arising out Case Crime No.132 of 2019, under Sections 60, 63 & 72 Uttar Pradesh Customs and Excise Act, under Sections 272 I.P.C., Police STation Baberu, District Banda, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda.

¶7

The contention of learned 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

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. 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 summoning order is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 30 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 :- 27.9.2019 Dev/-

Ankit Singh @ Tulsi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Singh @ Tulsi v. State of U.P. 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

Pramod Verma and 13 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Pappi Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Layak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Taufiq Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Madho @ Krishna Madhav Vs State of U.P. and Another