Disposed

Yogesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023/1403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court did not quash the case but granted liberty to the applicant to file a bail application before the trial court within two weeks for expedited consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to applicant to file bail application before the trial court within two weeks for expedited disposal.

Yogesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1403 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1220 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2020, under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Police StationKhargupur, District-Gonda as well as impugned chargesheet dated 08-02-2021 submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer against the applicant and the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 0310-2022.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant contends that the chargesheet has been filed under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 whereas the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment rendered by this court in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 4344 of 2021,(Daudayal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others) and further in case of Lakshman Prasad and Another Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 538 of 2021.

¶8

During course of his arguments, he has placed reliance on para nos. 4 & 5 of the case of Daudayal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others (Supra), which are extracated hereinunder :-

¶9

4. In view of above legal propositions the offence is not non-bailable. Cognizance of such an offence can be taken but in the absence of any other provisions showing the offence to be non-bailable, the offence would continue to

¶10

be bailable in view of Schedule-II to the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶11

5.......

¶12

The above legal position is not clear to most of the Investigating OfÏcers and the courts below and therefore, the bail application of the accused persons in such cases are rejected by the Magistrate and the special courts treating the offences to be non-bailable. Hence, it would be appropriate to protect the applicant's interest for limited period."

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the chargesheet has been filed against the present applicant under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The coordinate Bench of this court has passed the order in Crl.Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 4344 of 2021, wherein it has been held that offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is not non-bailable and further held that cognizance of such an offence can be taken, but, in absence of any other provisions showing the offence to be non-bailable, the offence would continue to be bailable in view of the Scheduled-II to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This court has further noticed the fact that during the course of the investigation, the present applicant was not arrested and thus his case is also covered with the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharth Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC Online SC, 615.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press the application and seeks liberty to file bail application before the learned trial court which may be decided in view of law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022)10 SCC 51.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

On due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties', it is provided that

¶17

in case, the applicant appears before the trial court within two weeks from today and file bail application, the same shall be decided expeditiously in view of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and in the light of the observations made above.

¶18

Further the applicant will have an opportunity at the appropriate stage go move an application for discharge taking therein all the pleas factual and legal which may be available to them, in accordance with law. In case, such an application is moved before t he learned trial court, the learned trial court shall dispose of the same by a speaking and reasoned order strictly, in accordance with law.

¶19

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 AKS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Ravi Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Anr.

Mohd. Safi Alias Lallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy./Prin.Secy.(Home) Civil Sectt Lko and Another

Sadruddin @ Sadru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home . Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Anshul Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ram Newej @ Ram Niwas and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Ramesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another