Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19701 of 2018 Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kishor Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash charge-sheet no.1 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016, the entire proceeding of case no.237 of 2018, State Vs. Mukesh (arising out of case crime no.303 of 2016), under Sections 4/5 of the Explosives Act, 1844, P.S. Kharela, District Mahoba, including the cognizance order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been implicated in the present case falsely and mala fide by the police with a stock of fire work on 28.10.2016, whereas he held a licence for sale of fire works on the occasion of Deepawali for a period of three days, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 2 to the affidavit. A perusal of the prosecution case as appears from the FIR and the charge sheet is that the applicant was arrested with a consignment of fire works near the ITI College beside a canal. A licence under the Explosives Substances Act is issued to sell fire works in a particular area, but it is not a licence to carry explosives anywhere, where there would be no security and other necessary measures that are essential conditions of the licence. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, in fact, the fire works were recovered from his shop and not a public place.
This is disputed by the learned A.G.A.
It is not a case where a charge sheet can be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the disputed defence of the accused cannot be assessed. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). It is further provided that in case the applicant at the appropriate stage moves an application for discharge, the Trial Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law uninfluenced by anything said in this order.
For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Anoop