SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 1137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Abbas Ansari – Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. – Opposite Party
Criminal Misc, Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. -1396 of 2022
Decided On : 26-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Pranjal Krishna

An absconder/fugitive of law is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - IPC, Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and Arms Act, Section 30 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the allegations against the accused-applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The court also considered the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016, along with the legal implications of obtaining and using firearms and cartridges illegally.

Fact of the Case:

The accused-applicant, a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, filed an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a criminal case involving allegations of illegal possession and use of firearms and cartridges. The accused-applicant was accused of obtaining and using firearms and cartridges illegally, and the police had issued non-bailable warrants against him.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused-applicant had obtained firearms and cartridges illegally and had been avoiding the legal process, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and a proclamation against him. The court rejected the anticipatory bail application but provided the option for the accused-applicant to apply for regular bail if he surrenders before the trial court.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the accused-applicant's possession and use of firearms and cartridges, the issuance of non-bailable warrants, and the consideration of anticipatory bail in light of the accused-applicant's avoidance of the legal process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the serious nature of the allegations, the accused-applicant's avoidance of the legal process, and the legal principle that an absconder/fugitive of law is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The anticipatory bail application was rejected, but the accused-applicant was provided with the option to apply for regular bail if he surrenders before the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-applicant, Abbas Ansari, a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh from Mau Assembly Constituency apprehending his arrest in Criminal Case No.54481 of 2020, arising out of Crime No.431 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC and Section 30 Arms Act, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow, pending before the Court of learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate(MP/MLA Cases), Court No.27, Lucknow after his Anticipatory Bail Application No.6539 of 2022 got rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.XIX, Lucknow/Special Court, M.P./M.L.A., District Lucknow vide order dated 4.8.2022.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as given in the F.I.R. No.431 of 2019, dated 12.10.2019 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC and Section 30 Arms Act, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow, are that the accused-applicant was issued Arm License No.1628/P.S. Mahanagar/Lucknow in the year 2012 for a 12 bore DBBL Gun.

3. On an application given to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Licensing Unit), New Delhi, the license bearing No. SDVS/2/2015/1 and UID No.106750021283342015 was transferred and registered at the address of the accused-applicant, Abbas Ansari, S/o Mukhtar Ansari at 111/A/9, Ganpati Niwas, Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Accused-applicant, who is claiming himself to be a renowned shooter, got seven more weapons endorsed on the said license, details of which would read as under:-

S. No .

Weapon Details

Weapon Number

Weapon Source

Endorsed on

1.

One .12 Bore Gun

DT-03297W

Imported from Beretla

13/08/2013(D M/Lucknow)

2.

One .300 Bore Rifle

8468

M/s Indian Arms corp., Lucknow

24/09/2015

3.

One 30.06 Bore rifle

R/105923

Imported from Slovenia

12/08/2016

4.

One .12 Bore SBBL Gun

TA-013638

Imported from Poljcane Slovenia

19/02/2016

5.

One .357 Bore Pistol

BBGV-728

Imported from Poljcane Slovenia

06/04/2016

6.

One .357 Bore Revolver

174-01661

M/s Shakti Shastraghar, Meerut, U.P.

11/12/2018

7.

One .12 Bore DBBL Gun

P 57382 B

M/s Rajdhani Traders

01/02/2019

4. It is alleged that the accused-applicant got the arm license issued by the District Magistrate, Lucknow transferred to New Delhi without giving any prior information regarding the same to the authorities at Lucknow and did not inform the concerned Police Station, i.e. Mahanagar Police Station, and for that reason, one firearm is shown to be registered concurrently at two States at different arms license having different UIDs. It is further alleged that the accused-applicant deliberately concealed the said information form the authorities, including the police station, with an intention to illegally buy and use the firearms. Further allegation is that the accused-applicant has purchased and got registered several weapons on the said license illegally and in an unauthorized manner. As many as 4431 cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant by the police and many of these cartridges are metal jacketed. As a shooter, keeping the metal jacketed cartridges for shooting purposes, is against the law and against the standard prescribed by the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF).

5. Accused-applicant imported one Rifle and six Barrels on 6.8.2016 in violation of Import Permit No.NRAI/IMPP/861/1785/2015, dated 2.9.2015 as the said permission was for one Rifle and one barrel only. The accused-applicant had also imported two barrels i.e. (I) .375 (9.52 mm) Bore No.R/101633 and (ii) .458(11.63 mm) Bore No.R/109355. Out of the above, six Barrels two were of prohibited bores and were not permissible for usage by a shooter as per the then existing Ministry of Ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top