Disposed¶17

Khotau Singh @ Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023/1969/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of SC/ST Act appeal against interlocutory bail-rejection and NBW order; Section 14A(1) excludes interlocutory orders; remedy of second bail application; surrender within 15 days; compliance with Satender Kumar Antill (MANU/SC/1024/2021) directed. Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Renu Agarwal, J.; Criminal Appeal No. 1969 of 2023; decided 4.7.2023; case crime No. 221/2017, P.S. Sareni, District Rae Bareli; Special Judge SC/ST Act, Raebareli order dated 13.04.2023.

What did the court decide?

Appeal finally disposed of with directions: appellant at liberty to move a fresh bail application before the trial court, to be disposed of with utmost expedition per Satender Kumar Antill (supra); appellant directed to surrender before the court below within 15 days. ¶17

Khotau Singh @ Indrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is maintainable against the order dated 13.04.2023 rejecting regular bail for want of prosecution and issuing a non-bailable warrant. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 13.04.2023 rejecting the regular bail application for want of prosecution is purely interlocutory, as the substantive rights of the applicant have not been decided thereby.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Since Section 14A permits an appeal only against an order 'not being an interlocutory order', and the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 decides no issue on merit, the instant criminal appeal is not maintainable.

¶15

Key takeaways

The appellant always retains the remedy of moving a second bail application stating the circumstances which led to dismissal of the earlier application due to his absence; if moved, the trial court shall dispose of it with utmost expedition in strict accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antill (supra).ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Renu Agarwal, J., 4.7.2023), Criminal Appeal No. 1969 of 2023: An appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli's order dated 13.04.2023 rejecting the appellant's regular bail application 'for want of prosecution' and issuing a non-bailable warrant (case crime No. 221/2017, P.S. Sareni, Dist. Rae Bareli) was held not maintainable: the bail-rejection order is purely interlocutory and decides no substantive right, whereas Section 14A confines appeals to orders 'not being an interlocutory order'. The accused retains the remedy of a second bail application disclosing the circumstances of his earlier absence, which the trial court must dispose of with utmost expedition in strict accordance with the law in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, MANU/SC/1024/2021; the appellant was directed to surrender before the court below within 15 days. Appeal finally disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42583

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1969 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Khotau Singh @ Indrapal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Adrocities), 1989 against the bail rejection order including nonbailable warrant dated 13.04.2023 passed by special Judge SC/ST Act, Raebareli passed in case crime No. 221/ 2017, under Section 323, 504, 506 and 3(1) DA, DHA SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sareni, District Rae Bareli in "State Vs. Khotau Sigh @ Indrapal Singh".

¶8

It is submitted that the benefit of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in MANU/SC/1024/2021 be given to the appellant without issuing notice to respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the appellant was released on interim bail vide order dated 14.11.2023 which

¶9

was extended by order dated 16.12.2022 and 20.02.2023 and as

¶10

the appellant could not appear in court on 13.04.2023, his interim bail was rejected and non-bailable warrant was issued. It is submitted that due to illness he could not appear in the court on 13.04.2023 and illness application was also presented before the court but the same was denied by the court and the bail was rejected. It is next submitted that the appellant wants to surrender in the court below.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It transpires that by means of impugned order dated 13.04.2023, an application seeking regular bail has been rejected for want of prosecution. Such order is purely interlocutory as substantive rights of applicant has not been decided thereby. The appellants have always a remedy of moving second bail application stating therein circumstances which led to dismissal of earlier bail application due to their absence.

¶12

Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being germane to the issue is quoted herein below:-

¶13

" 14A. Appeals. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order , of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law ."

¶14

(emphasis supplied)

¶15

Having regard to the fact that the appeal is maintainable against the final order only, the instant appeal does not appear to be maintainable in view of the fact that by means of the instant appeal, the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 under challenge herein, do not decide any issue on merit.

¶16

As observed above, the appellant always has liberty of moving an application seeking bail, therefore, in case, such an application is moved before the learned trial court concerned, the learned trial court concerned shall dispose of the same with utmost expedition and in strict accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill (supra).

¶17

Appellant is directed to surrender before the court below within 15 days.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal appeal stands finally disposed of .

¶19

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 4.7.2023

¶21

Karan

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khotau Singh @ Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khotau Singh @ Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Asarey Vs State of U.P.

Manish Verma Thru. His Father Kailash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Shrawan Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anshu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Param Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Prem Shankar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another