Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant claimed innocence and alleged license misuse, but the court found the license was indeed misused. The application was rejected, noting the applicant could seek regular bail later.
Prayer for interim relief and anticipatory bail refused; application dismissed.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 381 of 2022
Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in case crime no. 243 of 2021, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station- Kohibhar, District Maharajganj.
The claim of the applicant is that no offence whatsoever has been made out against the applicant. The offence at the most is punishable by one year imprisonment and that being so the bar of seven years would be applicable as provided u/s 41 Cr.P.C. and straight-way no coercive action should be taken. The claim of the applicant is that he is licensee and is proprietor of M/s Manish Trading Company (Hole Sale) and the place of witness has been fixed for three places one at Ghuguli District Maharajganj, Beejapar and Sabya Sishwa, District Maharajganj and he is doing business of selling the fertilizers, seeds and medicine for agriculture and he is having a requisite valid and effective license as required for doing the business under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. Now to say that any violation of the license pursuant to the aforesaid Fertilizer Order, 1985 is concerned has not been done and at the most license can be cancelled and no penal action can be taken against the applicant. The provisions of Section 3 are of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are not applicable. Lastly, he added that the applicant is innocent.
Retorting to the aforesaid argument, learned A.G.A. for the State has brought to the notice of this Court about the existing record of this case and has claimed that infact upon information being received that the license granted to the applicant is being misused, the entire premises was sealed and the same was searched by joint inspection of Magistrate which included the District Magistrate of the District concerned, whereupon, serious anomalies were found while carrying on the business in violation
of the license.
I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the record. Obviously the accusations are well founded at this stage to the extent that the license issued was found to be misused in certain ways. Now to claim that the commodities/goods belong to his brother would not exonerate him or minimised the gravity of the offence at this stage and this factual aspect can be appreciated by the lower court concerned and this Court while exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not required to appreciate all these factual aspects on merit. Consequently, no relief can be granted and the prayer for interim relief is refused and this Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.
However, applicant is free to agitate his claim at the stage of regular bail before the appropriate court.
The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the lower court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 3.2.2022
Raj
Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2022.02.11 16:35:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case regarding alleged misuse of a fertilizer license under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Santosh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
