Rahul v. State of U. P. Thru Prin. Secretary Home Deptt.
2020-06-04
ANIL KUMAR, MANISH MATHUR
body2020
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P.Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 through Video Conferencing and perused the record. 2. Since the point involved in the present case is trivial in nature, so with the consent of parties' counsel, who are present today, the present writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage. 3. Notice to the opposite party no.3 is dispensed with. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing the impugned first information report No.162 of 2020 under Section 60(2) U.P. Excise Act and Section 272 I.P.C. Police Station-Mailani District Kheri. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has informed that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy under Section-438 Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner ought to have moved an application for anticipatory bail before appropriate Court. However, counsel for the petitioner says that he will require a little time to avail the remedy. 6. Accordingly, six weeks time from today is allowed to the petitioner for approaching court concerned and availing the remedy. Till the said period of six weeks, petitioner shall not be arrested in aforesaid case crime. 7. Subject to above, the petition stands disposed of.