Dismissed

Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024/719/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. holding Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars maintainability since the coordinate bench order quashing proceedings applied only to a single co-accused involved in a compromise, not the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; applicant permitted to seek regular bail before the concerned court.

Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27659

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 719 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Dubey,Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J .

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 80 of 2021 under Sections 341, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (द), (ध)/3 (2) 5A of S.C./S.T. Act arising out of ST No. 1263 of 2021 relating to police station Kotwali Hasanganj District Lucknow.

¶7

The learned A.G.A. at the outset has raised a preliminary objection that by virtue of Section 18 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

¶8

Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR came to be lodged against the applicant and the other co-accused under Sections 147, 427, 323, 504, 354, 354 (घ), 341, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (द), 3(1) (ध), 3 (2) (va), 3(1) (w) (i) and Section 3 (i) (w) (ii) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station-Hasanganj, District Lucknow, however, during the course of proceedings, the complainant had entered into a compromise, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 8 and in furtherance thereof the criminal appeal no. 393 of 2022 was filed by Akshay Lal Yadav @ Akshay Kumar Yadav whereby on the basis of the said compromise it was sought that the proceedings be quashed.

¶9

It is further submitted that taking note of the aforesaid compromise, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2021 had passed an order wherein it was provided that the present criminal appeal stands allowed and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is quashed. It is thus urged that once a Coordinate Bench of this Court had already passed an order quashing the entire proceedings, hence, there is

¶10

no question of bar of the Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 to operate and come in the way of the applicant and in such circumstances, the applicant are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that in so far as the alleged compromise is concerned, the same was only between the complainant and Akshay Lal Yadav @ Akshay Kumar Yadav. It is not the case of the applicant that the compromise was entered by the complainant with all the co-accused including the present applicant. Moreover, even the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 05.4.2022, if perused, would indicate it is only per se against the applicant in the said case and for better appreciation the relevant part of the said order is being reproduced as under:-

¶12

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between the parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present criminal appeal stands allowed."

¶14

Having taken note of the aforesaid, all that can be seen at this stage is the fact that the compromise and the proceedings which were quashed can be only relate to one of the co-accused i.e. Akshay Lal Yadav @ Akshay Kumar Yadav. It does not relate to the present applicant and moreover, the charge sheet in the instant case has been filed which prima facie points out to the complicity of the applicant found which needs to go to the trial.

¶15

In light of the bar contained under Section 18, this Court does not find that the instant petition is maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open for the applicant to seek regular bail and in case such an application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned in light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825.

¶16

O rder Date :- 4.4.2024 Asheesh

¶17

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

Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Irfan @ Kaju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Vijay Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt Lko.

Nurooddin and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Safat Ali and Ors. vs Hazi Jalees Ahmad

Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Othes

Monu @ Munendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another