Allahabad High Court
Yaqoob Qureshi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 December, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Reserved on: 16.12.2022 Delivered on: 21.12.2022 Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5079 of 2022 Applicant :- Yaqoob Qureshi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman,Mohit Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Mr. N.I. Zafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by the counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Case Crime No. 131 of 2022, under Sections 420,269,270,272,273,120B IPC, Police Station- Kharkhauda, District- Meerut.
3. Brief fact of the case is that a raid was conducted in M/s Al Faheem Meetex Pvt. Ltd. in which the officials of the different departments as well as the departments of the Meerut Development Authority along with the local police personnel. It was further alleged that 10 persons were arrested on the spot and they told that the applicant usually visited the aforesaid company along with his family members and participated in the business affairs of the Company. During inspection in the plant, about 6720 kg raw meat and 1250 kg bone and processed meat of 2,40,438.8 kg were recovered. With this allegation on 1.4.2022, the FIR was lodged by the SHO concerned against the applicant, his wife Sanjeeda Begum, his two sons namely, Imran and Firoz along with certain employees.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that neither the applicant and the other family members were present in the premises nor they were arrested by the police. The arrested 10 accused persons allegedly are the employees of the aforesaid company who had made the statement in which they stated that three persons were the Directors of the Company namely, Imran, Firoz and Sanjeeda Begum, who are the sons and the wife of the applicant respectively. It is further submitted that the role of the present applicant was to the extent of visiting the company frequently and the visiting of any company is itself not a crime.
5. It is further submitted that the applicant had filed numerous affidavits under the Representation of Peoples Act by different authorities including the Returning Officer of Election Commission of U.P. as well as Union of India. In none of these affidavits, there is any mention of Yaqoog Qureshi (applicant) with the Directorship or any ownership or any income from the M/s Al Faheem Meetex Pvt. Ltd. Further submission is that merely vising any factory of the kins/relatives is itself not a crime till this is proved to be so. It is further submitted that this is all the political game of the ruling party to compel the administration to take stern action against the applicant on the political grounds. Insofar as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, there are 14 criminal cases against him, which are clearly explained in Para No. 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. All these cases are wholly politically motivated and seldom any case has been instituted by any private party.
6. It is further submitted that earlier the applicant approached this Court by means of Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4211 of 2022 seeking quashing of the FIR, which was duly rejected vide order dated 4.5.2022, a copy of which is annexed as SA-1 to the 3rd supplementary affidavit.
7. It is further submitted that thus, the applicant has no concern with the alleged offence as the aforesaid Company was run under the Directorship of his sons and his wife. The applicant was never a Director of the said company. The 3rd director Smt. Sanjeeda Begum had resigned from the company on 1.4.2019 and since then she was not the Director. The alleged recovered meat was not found to be adulterated or obnoxious. Only due to political pressure, the false and frivolous FIR was lodged against the applicant. Thus, no disclosed offence is made out against the applicant.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that co-accused namely, Mohd. Imran Qureshi who is the son of the applicant as well as the Director of the company, has already got interim protection by the Court passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5142 of 2022 vide order dated 8.7.2022. Co-accused namely, Faizab has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4142 of 2022 vide order dated 5.7.2022. Co-accused Sanjeeda Begum who is the wife of the applicant and was the Director of the above-mentioned company till 2019, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the court below concerned. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, the applicant was never arrested and fully cooperated with the investigation. But the investigating officer without collecting any cogent and credible evidence filed charge-sheet against the applicant. Although the proceeding U/s 82 CrPC has been initiated on 30.4.2022 to compel the applicant to appear before the court below till 31.5.2022. The applicant is aged about 62 years and is suffering from old age diseases. He is ready to cooperate with the trial.
9. Mr. Pankaj Kuamar Tripathi, learned AGA as well as Mr. Anand Sagar Dubey, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that although the applicant was not the Director of the above-mentioned company but he himself admitted that he usually visited the factory. Thus, the applicant actively participated in business affairs of his family members and it cannot be said that the applicant was not concerned with the business affairs of the Company. Although the applicant was not the Director of the aforesaid Company, but regarding this no document has been annexed with the application. It is further submitted that in the year 2019, the said factory was prohibited to run business. During inspection on the disclosure made by the ten arrested accused persons, 6720 kg meat and 1250 kg bones, processed meat of about 2,40,438 kg were recovered. Although the licence of the aforesaid company was cancelled since 2019, yet the applicant was involved in day to day business affairs of the Company along with his family members. The applicant is also a political person and at the back of political influence, the applicant and other co-accused persons carried the said illegal business without any authority of law. It is further submitted that due to non-cooperation of the applicant, the case is unnecessarily pending. It is also submitted that earlier the affidavit of the applicant was not filed along with the application and as such on 28.11.2022, it was directed by this Court to file the same. Thereafter in pursuance of order dated 28.11.2022, the applicant has filed his personal affidavit on 13.12.2022.
10. It is further submitted by the learned AGA that much prior to approaching before the court below for seeking anticipatory bail which was duly rejected by the court below vide order dated 23.5.2022, the proceeding U/s 82 CrPC had already been initiated against the applicant on 30.4.2022. Further, during course of investigation, the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation and due to this after initiation of proceeding U/s 82 CrPC, proceeding U/s 83 CrPC for attachment of the property of the person absconding was initiated against the applicant on 13.7.2022 and after investigation, the charge-sheet against the applicant was submitted U/s 269,270,272,273,120-B,417 IPC on 13.8.2022 as an absconder (Mafroori). At this juncture, it could not be seen whether the said offence is made out or not. He never cooperated in the investigation. The applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. Proceeding U/s 83 CrPC has already been initiated and charge-sheet against the applicant has already been filed against the applicant. The applicant has long criminal history of 15 cases. Thus, the instant application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. He further relies upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar decided on 21.10.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2021. The relevant para of which is being reproduced hereunder:
"16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , this Court (of which both of us were parties) considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 vis--vis a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as under : (SCC p. 733) ?12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as ?absconder?. Normally, when the accused is ?absconding? and declared as a ?proclaimed offender?, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.?
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. The above-mentioned factory was run without any legal authority since 2019. Now in this case, the property of the applicant U/s 83 CrPC was also attached and charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant as an absconder (mafroori). Due to non-cooperation of the applicant, the trial of the case is still pending. In these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. Thus, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail as per law propounded by the Apex Court. Consequently, the application U/s 438 CrPC is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 21.12.2022 Shravan