Applicant sought quashing of a summoning order and charge-sheet under Section 60 U.P. Excise Act but did not press the application, seeking liberty to apply for bail. Court refused quashing and directed expeditious bail consideration if he appears within two weeks, citing Satender Kumar Antil.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36139
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4338 of 2024
Applicant :- Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap,Saad Husain,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 6.3.2023 and the charge-sheet dated 15.6.2022 in Case No.1525 of 2023, in Crime No.0176 of 2022 under Section 60 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao.
Learned counsel for applicant, after arguing for some time, submits that the present application may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a bail application before the learned trial court which may be decided in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021, to which learned A.G.A. has no objection.
In view of the above, prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding is refused. So far as other prayer is concerned, it is provided that in case the applicant appears before the trial court within two weeks' from today and applies for bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously by the learned trial court, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra).
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Madhu
Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the summoning order and charge-sheet under the U.P. Excise Act should be quashed, or whether the application should be dismissed with liberty to seek bail per Satender Kumar Antil.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶9
Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kallu
State of U.P thru Secy Home
Another
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
