Allahabad High Court
Pintu Gupta @ Pintu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 23 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:59186
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8223 of 2025
Pintu Gupta @ Pintu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Amit Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the charge-sheet filed in Case Crime No.0121/2016, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act lodged at Police Station Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri and to quash the summoning order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.4183/2021, arising out of the aforesaid case crime number, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the certain complaints were filed by the card holders against the fair price shop holder and thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged. The investigation was done, chargesheet was filed and cognizance of the offence has been taken and the present applicant is to appear before the court.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the charge-sheet 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.
5. 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), which are extracted hereunder :
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.
5.......
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."
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.
9. 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 files 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.
10. The application is disposed of accordingly. (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) September 23, 2025 MVS/-