Disposed

Ashafaq Kureshi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2021A482/15928/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, stating that defence arguments exist only for trial. However, the court directed the trial court to consider bail without physical custody as the maximum sentence is within seven years, invoking the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash was dismissed. The trial court is directed to consider the bail application before taking the applicant into physical custody as per Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ashafaq Kureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15928 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ashafaq Kureshi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.K.Maurya, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 1383 of 2021, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act as well as charge sheet dated 18.6.2018 relates to Case Crime No. 0186 of 2018, Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad including the cognizance order dated 30.1.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was neither apprehended on the spot nor anything was recovered from his possession. The allegation that his vehicle was used in the crime, is totally false, as before the incident he has already transferred his vehicle alleged to be used in the crime to one Raghvendra Singh, but the vehicle was still in his name and the subsequent owner Raghvendra Singh gave the vehicle on lease to

¶8

one Pramod Singh. Therefore, the entire allegation against him is totally false and without any proper investigation charge sheet was filed against him is illegal.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that in the FIR it is specifically alleged that the vehicle used in commission of the present crime, was of applicant and at this stage any document, which was not enquired during investigation cannot be taken into account. He further submitted that the verification of the genuineness of the document can also not be considered at this stage by this Court and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and, therefore, the present application should be dismissed.

¶10

Admittedly, the applicant is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation that his vehicle was used in black marketing of Government Food grains (wheat) and after investigation, accusation against the applicant was found correct and charge sheet was submitted against him. As far as the arguments advanced by the defence counsel is concerned, it can only be considered during trial not at this stage, as the law is well settled that the defence taken by the accused cannot be appreciated while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such, the present

¶11

application 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant made a request that as the offence in which charge sheet was filed against the applicant is punishable with maximum sentence of seven years, therefore, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil V. Central Burreau of Investigation and others, passed in Special Appeal No.(Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 decided on 7.10.2021 , a direction may be given to the learned trial court to decide the bail application of the applicant even without taking him into physical custody.

¶13

Learned AGA has no objection in respect of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

As punishment provided under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is not more than seven years, therefore, the present case falls in Category-A and as per Clause (e) of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , it is directed that if applicant appears before the court concerned, then his bail application shall be considered in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶15

With the above direction, the present application is disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.12.2021 SKM

Ashafaq Kureshi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashafaq Kureshi 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

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Sagar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Chandan Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anjum and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Hari Shankar Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another