Allowed

Shiv Narayan Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024/597/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against rejection of bail. The appellant was only a witness to the sale deed, not its executant, and derived no benefit from it. The court below had overlooked these facts. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and released him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.1.2023 set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, with additional conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

Shiv Narayan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13206

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 597 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Shiv Narayan Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd.Yasin,Abdul Shahid Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on complainant but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, therefore, matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 27.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar arising out of F.I.R. No. 0268 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 463, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da) & 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he witnessed the execution of the sale deed. He further submits that the court below also failed to appreciate the evidences in correct perspective and passed the impugned order. He also submits that co-accused, Kalbe Hasan has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 4.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11805 of 2023, therefore, appellant, who is in jail since 25.12.2022, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant but he does not dispute the fact that appellant is only witness of the sale deed and co-accused, Kalbe Hasan has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate bench of this

¶10

Court.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that applicant is not executant of the sale deed in question and he is not alleged to have received any benefit from execution of sale deed. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 27.1.2023.

¶12

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶13

Order dated 27.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar arising out of F.I.R. No. 0268 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 463, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da) & 3(1) (dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant Shiv Narayan Pandey , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the

¶17

Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.2.2024 Gaurav/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Narayan Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Narayan Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj @ Manav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shiva Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Akhilesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shubham Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another