Partly allowed

Haseena Begum v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024A482/9070/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed application under Section 482 CrPC quashing the cognizance of proceedings under Section 135 Electricity Act. Granted liberty to file bail and discharge applications expeditiously and directed police to refrain from coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with liberty to file bail and discharge applications, stay of corresponding proceedings, and direction to police to refrain from coercive action for 30 days.

Haseena Begum vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69156

¶2

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9070 of 2024 Applicant :- Haseena Begum Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶5

The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶6

"i) To quash the Charge Sheet No.-02/2020 dated 04.07.2020 arising out of Cr.No.-499/2019 U/s135 Electricity Act P.S. Malihabad, District- Lucknow and the contained herewith as Annexure No.-1 to this petition.

¶7

(ii) Any other order or direction as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶8

(iii) Further proceedings of S.T./Case No.-930/2024 arising out of Charge Sheet No.-02/2020 dated 04.07.2020 arising out of Cr.No.-499/2019 U/s- 135 Electricity Act P.S. Malihabad, DistrictLucknow and the cognizance order dated 08.04.2024 viz. State Versus Firoj Ahmad & others pending in the Court of 4th A.S.J./E.C. Act Lucknow may be stayed during the pendency of the aforesaid petition."

¶9

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicant to file bail application before the trial court which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51 as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously.

¶10

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

¶11

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court concerned, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶12

Liberty is also granted to the applicant to move discharge application before the court below and the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.10.2024

¶16

Jyoti/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Haseena Begum v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseena Begum v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deenanath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Sajeewan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Sanjay Sharma and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs Additional District Judge /Special Judge P.C. Act Court No. 5, Lucknow and 8 Others

Neeraj Agrawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Vivek Yadav @ Sumit @ Sonu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.