Allowed

Shahi Umang @ Shahe Umam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023ABAIL/1458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order on two anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges under the Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Act and IPC. The court allowed bail pending the filing of the police report.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants pending filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on a security of Rs. 50,000/-.

Shahi Umang @ Shahe Umam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181270

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1458 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shahi Umang @ Shahe Umam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

and

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2235 of 2023

¶7

Applicant :- Ayush Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶9

As both the criminal misc. anticipatory bail applications arises out of same case crime number, it is hereby disposed of with a common order.

¶10

Present Anticipatory Bail Applications have been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - S hahi Umang @ Shahe Umam and Ayush Verma in Case Crime No.11 of 2023, under Section 4/21 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Section 272, 273 IPC, Police Station - Civil Lines, District-Meerut.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted. Applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. If the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by

¶13

the police any time.

¶14

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶15

It appears from the perusal of the record that a police party raided the restaurant wherein it was informed to the police that some hookah bar is running wherein hookah is served to the customers by adding harmful / adulterated flavours in the tobacco. Present applicants were not present on spot at the time of police raid and their name came to surface on the basis of statement of co-accused Nadeem. However, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the portion in which the hookah bar was running, was taken on rent by the present applicants from the owner Smt. Mamta on 7.12.2022 and subsequently, the present applicants handed over that portion to co-accused Nadeem on some contract. The rent agreement executed by Smt. Mamta and the agreement letter executed by the present applicants cover the period when the alleged incident has occurred. No criminal history has been assigned to the present applicants and it is submitted that no FSL Report in respect of prohibited tobacco has been collected by the Investigating Officer so far. It is further submitted that the applicants are co-operating with this case. They are not having any criminal history. He further submitted that an interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2023 and the same has not been misused by the applicants.

¶16

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶17

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶18

9. The application is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicants.

¶24

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Nitika Sri.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahi Umang @ Shahe Umam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahi Umang @ Shahe Umam 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

Anoop Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sanyukta @ Sanyojita Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hukum Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Riyaz Mohd @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Makhanchu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Alisher Vs State of U.P.