Court No. - 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38540 of 2022

Applicant :- Nehney

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the material available on record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

filed to quash the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 18.04.2018 in

G.S.T. No. 95 of 2016 (State Vs. Nahney) arising out of Case

Crime No. 396 of 2015, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster Ac,

Police Station- Saiyan, District- Agra, pending in the Court of

Special Judge (Gangster Act)/A.S.T.-18, Agra with a further

prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that non-bailable

warrant has been issued on 18.04.2018. The contention of the

learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the

applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been

instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of

harassment.

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the

facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is

made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the

bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be

adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At

this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the

law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs.

State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.

Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.

P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and

another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence

of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the

applicant has got a right of discharge and he are free to take all

the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial

court.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as non-

bailable warrant is refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail

application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case

Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail

application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under

four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that

the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the

aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application.

This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicant

approach the trial court for bail, same shall be heard and

disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the

settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar

Antil (supra).

As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.

Order Date :- 19.1.2023

Krishna*

Digitally signed by :-

KRISHNA KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad