Partly allowed

Panna Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020ABAIL/1119/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under S. 438 CrPC partly allowed. Bail rejected for applicant no. 1 (shop dealer) due to specific black marketing allegations. Bail granted for applicants 2, 3, and 4 due to lack of prima facie evidence of involvement and no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants 2, 3, and 4 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties, subject to standard conditions. Bail application for applicant 1 rejected.

Panna Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1119 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Panna Lal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the first information report as well as rejection order.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that so far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned, he is fair price shop dealer and has not violated any control order; infact on the date of incident he was present in Lucknow in connection with treatment of his wife and had no knowledge about transportation of wheat and rice seized by the police and therefore, the applicant being first offender may be enlarged on bail. He has further argued that so far as the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the applicant no. 2 is the son of applicant no. 1, applicant no. 3 is owner and driver of Pickup vehicle and applicant no. 4 is neighbour of applicant no. 1. The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to. Therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after recovery of essential commodities that was seized by the police search was conducted in the shop of applicant no. 1 and discrepancy with regard to distribution of essential commodities has been found and therefore the applicant no. 1 is not entitled for grant of bail. However, he could not dispute anything in respect of applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶8

Considering that the applicant no. 1 is fair price shop dealer and against him there are specific allegations of indulging in black-marketing, I do not find any good ground to grant bail. The bail application filed on behalf of the applicant no. 1 is rejected.

¶9

So far as the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, prima facie, at this stage there is nothing to indicate that they were involved in black marketing of essential commodities. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, the applicants no. 2, 3 and 4 are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

In the event of arrest of the applicants no. 2, 3 and 4 namely Sandesh, Manna Lal and Vikrama involved in Case Crime No. 188 of 2019, u/s 3/7 E.C. Act, P.S. Gaura, Badshahpur, District Jaunpur, shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.

¶11

1.that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a

¶12

police officer as and when required;

¶13

2.that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

3.that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

4.that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants;

¶16

5.that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicants;

¶17

6.that the applicants are directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

¶18

7.that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

8.that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

9.that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

10.that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶22

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the court of session, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the cognizance/ committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, partly allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.2.2020 Dhirendra/

Panna Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panna Lal and 3 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Anant Karn Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sonu Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Talib Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.