Disposed¶9

Haji Mohd Wasi v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025A482/29653/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:4732. Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application not pressed; surrender and expeditious bail direction; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 paras 100-100.11 applied; interim bail approval noted from (2021) 10 SCC 773 para 6; no coercive action for three weeks or till bail disposal; Section 135 Electricity Act complaint, P.S. Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar; Special Judge (E.C. Act); summoning order dated 05.05.2006; bail applications to be disposed within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the court below to consider and decide the applicant's bail application expeditiously upon surrender within three weeks, in view of Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51; interim protection that no coercive action be taken against the applicant for three weeks or till disposal of the bail application, whichever is earlier.

Haji Mohd Wasi vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 05.05.2006 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.174 of 2006 under Section 135 Electricity Act, pending before the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar, should be quashed. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The prayer for quashing was not pressed; the applicant sought to surrender before the court below and apply for bail, with a request that the bail application be considered expeditiously within a stipulated period.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Application disposed of with the direction that if the applicant surrenders before the court concerned and applies for bail within three weeks, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below, in view of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶9

Key takeaways

Interim protection: for a period of three weeks from the order or till disposal of the applicant's bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No. 29653 of 2024, Haji Mohd Wasi v. State of U.P. and Another) seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 05.05.2006 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.174 of 2006 (State vs. Haji Mohd. Wasi) under Section 135 Electricity Act, pending before the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar. The quashing prayer was not pressed; the applicant sought to surrender and apply for bail. The Court disposed of the application directing that if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within three weeks, the bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (paras 100 to 100.11, including disposal of bail applications within two weeks), and further held that for three weeks or till disposal of the bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant; approval of interim bail till disposal of the bail application was noted from Satender Kumar Antil, (2021) 10 SCC 773, para 6.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4732

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29653 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Haji Mohd Wasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Jamal,Shabeh Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Usha Kiran

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Adil Jamal along with Sri Shabeh Jamal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Yadav holding brief of Sri Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 05.05.2006 in Complaint Case No.174 of 2006 (State vs. Haji Mohd. Wasi), under Section 135 Electricity Act, P.S. Chamanganj, District Kanpur Nagar passed by Additional Session Judge-XII, Kanpur Nagar as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.174 of 2006 (State Vs. Haji Mohd. Wasi), under Section 135 Electricity Act, P.S. Chamanganj, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar.

¶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 applies 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 three 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

¶11

(supra ) are being quoted as under;

¶12

"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:

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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].

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

100.10. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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:

¶26

"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."

¶27

For a period of three weeks from today or till disposal of bail application of applicant, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶28

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Jitendra

¶29

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haji Mohd Wasi v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Mohd Wasi v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Nakki Qureshi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Anothaer

Smt. Savita Devi and 2 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others

Rajeev Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Subhash Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others