Masuk Ali And 9 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It directed the applicants to appear before the concerned court on 28.02.2022 and move their bail application, along with a certified copy of the High Court's order. The concerned court was directed to consider and decide the bail application on the same day in accordance with law. The Court further ordered that until 28.02.2022, the applicants shall not be arrested in pursuance of the non-bailable warrants under challenge. The application was disposed of with these directions. The specific issue of whether the NBWs were justified was implicitly addressed by providing a mechanism for the applicants to seek bail and obtain interim protection, rather than quashing the warrants outright.

Facts

The applicants, Masuk Ali and nine others, invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued against them. These NBWs arose from GST No. 7 of 2010, stemming from Case Crime No. 165 of 2009, under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act, Police Station Jasrathpur, District Etah. An FIR was lodged on 30.09.2009, followed by a charge-sheet and cognizance. The matter was committed to sessions as GST No. 07 of 2010. The applicants claim they consistently appeared in court, but the prosecution had only produced one witness. They state they could not appear on dates from 04.02.2020 onwards, leading to the issuance of NBWs, and assert they do not intend to evade proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the applicants, who claim to have consistently appeared in court and are not evading proceedings, is justified, considering the delay in the trial and the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of criminal procedure and fair trial). Arguments for the applicants: The applicants argued that they have been attending court regularly since the trial began and have not attempted to evade proceedings. They submitted that the prosecution has been dilatory, producing only one witness despite the passage of time, and that their absence on specific dates was unintentional. They sought quashing of the NBWs. Arguments for the Opposite Party (State): The learned A.G.A. did not present specific arguments against the applicants' plea for quashing the NBWs in the provided text. The judgment notes that the learned A.G.A. was heard, but their specific contentions are not recorded.