Anticipatory bail application in an FIR under IPC and SC/ST Act provisions. The Court held the earlier quashing order covered only one co-accused, not the applicant; Section 18 bar applied, application dismissed with liberty to seek regular bail per Satender Kumar Antil.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27659
Court No. - 14
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.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J .
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:-
"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.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present criminal appeal stands allowed."
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.
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.
O rder Date :- 4.4.2024 Asheesh
Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Is the anticipatory bail application maintainable despite the bar under Section 18 SC/ST Act given a coordinate Bench quashed proceedings based on a compromise?
Does the compromise and quashing order cover the present applicant or only a co-accused?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of InvestigationApplied¶16
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi
State of U.P. thru Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home
Akshay Lal Yadav @ Akshay Kumar Yadav
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
