Siraz And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The applicants, Siraz and Saddam Ahmad, filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in Case Crime No. 197 of 2020. The prosecution alleges that during the COVID-19 lockdown, when selling of items was prohibited, the applicants sold expired daily household items, including water bottles, at inflated prices. The applicants operate a Kirana shop registered under GST. They claim to have cooperated with the investigation and have no criminal antecedents. The FIR was lodged by a police officer, and the applicants allege false implication due to failure to meet illegal demands of the police.
Held
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. Regarding the issue of whether an offence under Section 273 IPC is made out, the Court did not explicitly rule on this point. However, it considered the arguments advanced by the applicants, including their cooperation in the investigation, their undertaking to cooperate in the trial, and their lack of previous criminal history. The Court found it expedient in the interest of justice to protect the liberty of the applicants, citing the dictum of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). The applicants were directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions including not leaving India without permission, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing on each date fixed for trial. The trial court was also directed to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition.
Key Issues
1. Whether an offence under Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out against the applicants, considering the prosecution's allegations of selling expired goods at higher rates during a lockdown? Petitioner's arguments: The applicants' counsel argued that no offence under Section 273 IPC is made out, even if the prosecution's story is accepted. They contended that there is no independent witness to the incident and that the FIR was lodged by a police officer. The applicants further alleged false implication due to their failure to meet illegal demands of the police, asserting their cooperation in the investigation and undertaking to cooperate in the trial. They also highlighted their GST registration as evidence of legitimate business operations. Revenue's arguments: The State/respondent, represented by the learned A.G.A., did not present any specific arguments against the anticipatory bail application in the provided text.
Sections Cited
Section 273 IPC, Section 438 Cr.P.C., Section 188 IPC, Section 269 IPC, Section 270 IPC, Section 3 Mahamari Adhiniyam
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
proposed order. The allegation in the prosecution case is that during COVID-19 when there were prohibition for selling any item and there was lock down the applicants were selling the daily household items including the water bottles, which were expired, on higher rates. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are running Kirana shop/General store in their house situated in Mohalla Sadar Bazar which is registered under GST. The certificate of GST registration is on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence
under Section 273 I.P.C. is made out even if the entire prosecution story is taken as it is. There is no independent witness to the incident. First Information Report has been lodged by the complainant, who is a police officer as well as while filing the charge-sheet in which statement of police witnesses have been taken the applicant has been falsely implicated as he failed to meet out illegal demands of the police. The applicants have cooperated in the investigation. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. On due consideration of the arguments advanced; perusal of the record; so also the fact that the applicants have no previous criminal history and they have cooperated in the investigation and further undertaken to cooperate in the trial, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants Siraz and Saddam Ahmad shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the following conditions:- 1. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; 2. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; 3. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 4. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court
below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Such other reasonable conditions which the learned trial court may deem fit may be imposed. Before parting with, learned trial court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties. Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Madhu MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.