Allowed

Ghanshyam Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024CRLA/3448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. Set aside the lower court's order, holding that it failed to properly examine the prosecution case and evidence regarding the disputed property and alleged violence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.3.2024 set aside; bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. accepted; appellant released on regular bail upon furnishing bonds.

Ghanshyam Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115963

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3448 of 2024 Appellant :- Ghanshyam Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶5

Ghanshyam Pandey-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 28.3.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 197 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(V)Ka, 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Pashchim Sharira, District Kaushambi has been rejected.

¶6

Learned counsel for appellant has argued that vide agreement dated 20.6.2018, the complainant-respondent no.2 had agreed to sell his immovable property in favour of the appellant-accused for a total sale consideration of Rs.2 lacs, and against this a sum of Rs.1 lac was paid as an earnest money, but instead of keeping his words, he sold the said property in favour of Rajju vide sale deed dated 28.7.2021. Learned counsel submits that in respect of this breach of promise, the appellant preferred a civil suit dated 12.11.2021 bearing Original Suit No. 120 of 2021 (Annexure No.11) for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.6.20218, which is pending adjudication, wherein the defendant no.1-complainant is regularly appearing. Learned counsel submits

¶7

that after a long delay of this dispute, which is civil in nature he has falsely implicated the appellant through F.I.R. dated 28.8.2023 (Annexure No.3) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel submits that the contents of the F.I.R. do not make out any offence of cheating as the complainant has prima facie failed to establish any wrongful loss suffered by him, much less at the hands of appellant. Learned counsel submits that appellant is in custody since his arrest i.e. on 28.3.2024 and the investigation in the case is complete, as the charge sheet, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stands filed on 5.11.2023 (Annexure No.9). According to learned counsel, the Special Court, Kaushambi has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case while refusing the concession of bail. He prays that impugned order dated 28.3.2024 be set aside and the appellant be released on regular bail.

¶8

The prayer is opposed by learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for complainant-respondent no.2, who has argued that complainant has specifically named the accused persons in the commission of alleged crime as pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 20.6.2018, the sale deed was not executed, therefore, the appellant resorted to the violence and committed the alleged crime by attempting to take forcible possession of the property in question. However, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for complainant that civil suit filed by appellant is pending adjudication, wherein the defendant is yet to file his written statement. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent no.2 submits that order dated 28.3.2024 passed by Special Court, kaushambi is based upon

¶9

correct appreciation of the facts and the prosecution evidence collected during investigation, therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Learned counsel for complainantrespondent no.2 prays that appeal be dismissed.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon documentary evidence as far as the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is concerned, and in respect of agreement to sell dated 20.6.2018 the civil suit between the parties is also pending. Notably, the civil suit was instituted on 12.11.2021 (Annexure No.11) whereas the allegations regarding cheating, criminal intimidation etc. have been made after a long delay.

¶11

Further, it would be matter of evidence, if, after the alleged sale of property in favour of Rajju, if, the complainant was actually in possession of the subject land when the alleged occurrence took place, and in this regard, the prosecution is yet to discharge the onus, therefore, considering the nature of offences as well as the fact that the investigation is complete, further detention of the appellant behind the bars may not be justified, who is in custody since his arrest on 28.3.2024. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.3.2024 passed by Special Court, Kaushambi would show that Special Court, Kaushambi has not examined the prosecution case properly while refusing to exercise the discretion in favour of appellant. The impugned order dated 28.3.2024 suffers from illegality, therefore, the same is not sustainable, as it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellant.

¶12

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 28.3.2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439

¶13

Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellant– Ghanshyam Pandey be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶14

The appeal is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 P.S.Parihar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ghanshyam Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Pandey v. State of U.P. 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

Shadab vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Jain and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Tushar vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash vs State of Up and Another

Himanshu Alias Amma vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok vs State of U.P. and 3 Others