Rajendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the impogned summoning order dated 29.5.2025 issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no. 13, Pratapgarh in criminal case no.7337/2025, State Vs. Rajendra Kumar Yadav, arising out of case crime no. 412/2020, under section 3/7 E. C.Act, Police station Maheshganj, District-Pratapgarh, as well as impugned chergesheet m. 33/2025, dated 28.2.2025 alongwith entire criminal proceedings of the case pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Pratapgarh.

¶12

Counsel for the applicant contends that the chargehseet has been filed under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, whereas the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment rendered by this court in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 4344 of 2021,(Daudayal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others) and further in case of Lakshman Prasad and Another Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 538 of 2021.

¶13

During course of his arguments, he has placed reliance on para nos. 4 & 5 of the case of Daudayal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others (Supra) ,

¶14

A482 No. 8264 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

which are extracted hereinunder :-

¶17

"4. In view of above legal propositions the offence is not non-bailable. Cognizance of such an offence can be taken but in the absence of any other provisions showing the offence to be non-bailable, the offence would continue to be bailable in view of Schedule-II to the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶18

5.......

¶19

The above legal position is not clear to most of the Investigating Officers and the courts below and therefore, the bail application of the accused persons in such cases are rejected by the Magistrate and the special courts treating the offences to be non-bailable. Hence, it would be appropriate to protect the applicant's interest for limited period."

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the chargesheet has been filed against the present applicant under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The coordinate Bench of this court has passed the order in Crl.Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 4344 of 2021, wherein it has been held that offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is not non-bailable and further held that cognizance of such an offence can be taken, but, in absence of any other provisions showing the offence to be non-bailable, the offence would continue to be bailable in view of the Scheduled-II to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This court has further noticed the fact that during the course of the investigation, the present applicant was not arrested and thus his case is also covered with the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharth Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC Online SC, 615.

¶21

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press the application and seeks liberty to file bail application before the learned trial court which may be decided in view of law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022)10 SCC 51.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for

¶23

A482 No. 8264 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

the applicant.

¶26

On due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties', it is provided that in case, the applicant appears before the trial court within two weeks from today and file bail application, the same shall be decided expeditiously in view of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra ) and in the light of the observations made above.

¶27

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶29

September 24 , 2025

¶30

Anuj Singh

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Shiv Kumar Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Mahesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Dularey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajesh Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) , Ayodhya Region , Ayodhya and 3 Others