Single Judge order allowing bail if applied within ten days. Application to quash summons rejected as offence is made out; applicant must prove substantive defence later.
Prayer to quash rejected. Applicant directed to apply for bail within ten days if appearing before court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28589 of 2021 Applicant :- Taufiq Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in complaint case no. 11111 of 2019, State Vs. Taufiq Ahamad and another, under section 3(1) (2) (3) / 23, 25 Pre conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic ( Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, police station Phoolpur District Azamgarh.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is only a gate keeper in the Sonography Centre. He is not the Administrator of the said centre as shown in the complaint, so the prayer is made to quash the summoning order dated 10.10.2019.
From the complaint appended at page '18' of the paper book, it appears that the present applicant is working as Administrator in the said Sonographty centre. The applicant in his version has stated that he is only a gate keeper of the said centre but in support of his version he has not filed any documentary evidence. As the complaint has been filed against the present applicant and Dr. Naseem showing the applicant as Administrator of the said Sonography Centre wherein the violation of Section 3(1)(2)(3)/23, 25 Pre conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic ( Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is said to have done, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Hence, the prayer as made by the learned counsel for the applicant is hereby rejected.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears before the court below and applies for bail within a period of ten days from today, his bail application shall be considered and decided in the light of law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another. (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2016 (95) ACC 950.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 15.2.2022/Gss
Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.02.15 18:56:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a summoning order should be quashed when the applicant claims he is only a gate keeper and not an administrator.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Taufiq Ahmad
Sadhna Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
