Dismissed

Mr. Suresh Khatua v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2023ABAIL/12811/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Suresh Khatua in a case involving fake liquor bottles and caps. The court held that the applicant's prior criminal history and recovery of fake items from his factory made it an unsuitable case for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected.

Mr. Suresh Khatua Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12811 of 2022 Applicant :- Mr. Suresh Khatua Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ankur Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶5

The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Mr. Suresh Khatua seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0099 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 51, 63 of Copyrights Act, Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶6

As per prosecution case, on the basis of confidential information one Rajiv Kumar Gupta was apprehended with two gunny sacks of fake wrappers, caps and Bar codes; He admitted before the police that he has been supplying the liquor bottles fitted with fake caps and Bar codes to the licensed shops; he disclosed the names of certain persons, who were complicit in supplying of liquor with names of other brands, hence the FIR was lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and and Sections 51, 63 of Copyrights Act and investigated upon. During investigation after a gap of several months, on the basis of the statements given by the persons involved in the matter, the premises at New Mandoli at Delhi, belonging to present applicant Suresh Khatua was raided and a number of lids/caps manufactured at that Unit bearing fake marks of reputed companies were recovered.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he has a factory at the stated place in which aluminum lids are being manufactured and that his factory is duly registered with a G.S.T. number and his all activities are as per the law and rules. It is stated that he has been implicated in this case after six months of filing the FIR, on the basis of the statement of the coaccused which is having no evidentiary value in law and that he has been implicated for ulterior motives; therefore, his liberty

¶8

deserves to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶9

The anticipatory bail application is vehemently opposed by the other side stressing before me the point that carrying on legal activities in a manufacturing Unit cannot be taken as defence if side by side fake lids/caps of a reputed companies are recovered from his factory. The applicant is having a criminal history as below:-

¶10

(i) Case Crime No. 930 of 2019, under Sections 60(1), 63 of Excise Act, Sections 63/65 of Copyrights Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar;

¶11

(ii) Case Crime No. 1027 of 2019, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar;

¶12

(iii) Case Crime No. 76 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sections 63/65 of Copyrights Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar;

¶13

(iv) Case Crime No. 127 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶14

I considered all the submissions, facts, circumstances and material placed before me, It may be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely not as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find it fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶17

9. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.1.2023 #Vikram/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mr. Suresh Khatua v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Suresh Khatua v. State of U.P.

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

Bheekam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chunnu @ Naseem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manjesh Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tuntun Kumar Byahut Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sandhya Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.