Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 632 (ALL)

Shakir v. State of U. P.

2014-02-19

VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Virendra Vikram Singh,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi for the U.P. State Electricity Board. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of case crime no.379 of 2010 arising out of case no.1484/2011, under Sections 135/138 Electricity Act, P.S. Akrabad, District Aligarh, pending in the Court of Special Judge (EC), Aligarh. 3. It has been argued that the house in question where the electricity connection was found to be illegally connected belongs to Dilshad, brother of the applicant, hence, no liability can be fastened on the applicant. 4. Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the U.P. State Electricity Board after having obtained instruction from the department has informed that there is definite allegation that it was the applicant who was found illegally connecting electricity wire and to restore the power supply. 5. Having considered the facts of the case, there does not appear any reason to quash the proceedings or charge sheet filed against the applicant. The prayer for quashing the same is declined. 6. However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today along with the certified copy of this order and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009(4) SCC 437 , after hearing the public prosecutor. 7. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive process 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 and no protection of this order shall be available to him. 8. However, the applicant may move for his discharge before the trial Court and the trial Court, if charge has already not been framed, shall consider the plea of discharge within the frame of law. 9. 8. However, the applicant may move for his discharge before the trial Court and the trial Court, if charge has already not been framed, shall consider the plea of discharge within the frame of law. 9. It is being made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the subordinate court shall exercise its independent discretion in deciding the application for bail. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.