Allahabad High Court
Sohan Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 14 October, 2020
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 59 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6966 of 2020 Applicant :- Sohan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sriprakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Sohan Yadav in connection with Case Crime No. 89 of 2020, under sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and Section 3 (A) Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1985, P.S. Jamalpur, District Mirzapur.
It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which occurred on 17.8.2020, the informant Pakaj Kumar Prajapati, District Agriculture Officer, Mirzapur lodged an F.I.R. dated 29.8.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No. 89 of 2020, under sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and Section 3-A Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1985, P.S. Jamalpur, District Mirzapur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant Sohan Yadav has been nominated as named accused. Allegations made in the F.I.R. are to the effect that the applicant as Secretary of Agriculture Co-operative Society had sold fertilizer in violation of Section 3-A of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973, F.C.O 1985 and Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant is Secretary of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Chaukia, but he is innocent. He further contends that applicant has not violated any provisions of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973. In support of his submission, learned counsel for applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the photo copy of sale-register as well as affidavit which are record as Annexure 3 to the affidavit collectively to the effect that the sold fertilizer has been purchased by Ramesh Singh. It is next contended that F.I.R. was lodged on 19.8.2020, but till date, police police has not collected any such material, on the basis of which complicity of present applicant can be said to be established in above mentioned case crime number. He, therefore, contends that since the investigation is still going on, but custodial arrest of the applicant is not absolutely necessary. Applicant has no criminal history. Applicant undertakes to co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus contends that liberty of applicant be protected by extending him benefit of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He contends that applicant is named accused in the F.I.R. giving rise to the present application for anticipatory bail. Specific allegations have been made against the applicant to the effect that fertilizer has been sold by applicant in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 3-A of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973. He thus contends that applicant is not entitled to any indulgence of this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and complicity of applicant and for the facts/reasons noted above, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present application for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 14.10.2020 HSM