Dismissed

Himanshu Singhal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024A482/19659/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the applicant's application to quash proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Instead, the Court directed that if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within two weeks, the lower court must consider and decide the application expeditiously, citing guidelines from the Supreme Court regarding bail timelines.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash proceedings was dismissed with a direction for expeditious bail consideration within two weeks upon surrender.

Himanshu Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:183943

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19659 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Himanshu Singhal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uday Bhan, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 26.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (Drugs & Cosmetics Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.54 of 2024 (State of U.PO. Vs. Himanshu Singhal), under Section-18A, 18(c), 27(b)(ii)/28 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, Police Station-Jagner, District-Agra, pending in the court of Special Judge (Drugs & Cosmetics Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. He wants to surrender before the court below and apply for bail. He further submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the court concerned to consider the bail application of the applicant expeditiously within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned and applies for bail within two weeks from today, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 .

¶10

For reference paras 100 to 100.11 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) are being quoted as under:

¶11

"100. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain directions. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments:

¶12

100.1. The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.

¶13

100.2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] . Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

¶14

100.3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.

¶15

100.4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate Standing Orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41-A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 7-2-2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448 ] and the Standing Order issued by Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Code.

¶16

100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.

¶17

100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this Court in Siddharth [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423].

¶18

100.7. The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously.

¶19

100.8. The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.

¶20

100.9. While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.

¶21

100.10. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436-A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh [Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 663] , followed by appropriate orders.

¶22

100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.

¶23

It is needless to mention that the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 has also approved for grant of interim bail till disposal of bail application. Para 6 of the Satender Kumar Antil (supra) decided on 07.10.2021 is being quoted as under:

¶24

"6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."

¶25

For a period of two weeks from today or till appearance of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶26

Order Date :- 25.11.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Himanshu Singhal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Singhal 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Wasim Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Sohan Lal vs State of Up and Another

Naseema Khatun and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Omveer vs State of Up and Another

Ajay Chandani vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Ankit Brick Industry and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another