Laxman Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1551 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3285/2021)

Laxman Prasad Pandey .…Appellant(s) Versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …. Respondent(s)

WITH

CRL.APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6611/2021

CRL.APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6569/2021

CRL.APPEAL NO. 1552 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.3226/2021

CRL.APPEAL NOs. 1554­1555 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.5605­ 5606/2021

CRL.APPEAL NO. 1553 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.5539/2021

CRL.APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6061/2021

JUDGMENT

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.12.11 13:19:25 IST A.S. Bopanna,J.

Reason: 1

1. The three appeals of the first set, all titled Laxman

Prasad Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. bearing

Criminal Appeal No.1551/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)

No.3285/2021); Criminal Appeal No.1554­1555/2021

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5605­5606/2021) and Criminal

Appeal No.1553/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.

5539/2021) arise against the orders dated 16.03.2021,

17.12.2020 and 19.03.2021 and 26.07.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of

Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Bail Application

No.1694 of 2021, Bail Application No.9559 of 2020, Bail

Application No. 11 of 2021 and Bail Application No.3876 of

2021. The accused in the above said cases are Anjani

Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar

Maurya.

2. The second set of four appeals, titled Laxman Prasad

Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. bearing Criminal

Appeal No.1556/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6061/

2021); Vishnu Prasad Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Anr.;

Criminal Appeal No.1552/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) 2 No.3226/2021; Subhash Saini and Pramod Prasad Pandey

vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.1558/2021

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6611/2021) and Ratnakar

Dwivedi and Vikas Chandra Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Anr.;

Criminal Appeal No.1557/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)

No.6569/2021) arise against the separate orders, all dated

23.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Allahabad,

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in A.B. No.5003 of 2020, A.B

No.276 of 2021 and A.B. No.5370 of 2020 respectively.

3. In the first set of three appeals, the complainant

Laxman Prasad Pandey has assailed the orders passed by

the learned Single Judge of the High Court enlarging the

accused on bail, in case relating to FIR No.406 of 2020. In

the second set of four appeals, the appellants therein have

assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge

dismissing the petitions filed by them seeking grant of

anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.407 of 2020. The

above noted two sets of cases were tagged, heard together

and are therefore being disposed of by this common

judgment, since the issue in these appeals pertain to the

same incident which is alleged to have occurred on

3 08.05.2020 within the jurisdiction of the Kotwali City Police

Station, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh.

4. The brief facts to be noted for the purpose of disposal

of these appeals indicate that Laxman Prasad Pandey had

reported with a complaint to the jurisdictional Police on

09.05.2020 at 16:30 hours about the incident. The same

was registered in FIR No.406 of 2020. In the said complaint,

he had alleged that he along with his brother Ram Prasad

Pandey, Subhash Saini, Surendra Tiwari and others went to

the plot situated in Marut Nagar where Sarvesh Tiwari,

Anand Tiwari @ Vivek and others named in the complaint

along with certain other unknown persons were present.

Complainant went there to seek return of the money he had

given earlier to Sarvesh Tiwari. It is alleged that Sarvesh

Tiwari and others were armed with repeater, pistol and rifle.

When the complainant reached there, he and his associates

were asked to sit on the chairs. The complainant at that

point asked for return of his money. At that stage Aditya

Singh @ Major and the other persons named in the

complaint exhorted to attack the complainant and his

associates by shouting “Mar Dalo Salo Ko”. The said Aditya

4 Singh and Monu are alleged to have caught hold of the

appellants’ brother and snatched his licensed pistol, while

Sarvesh Tiwari, Anand Tiwari, Anjani Shukla and others

who were armed with weapons started firing on the

complainant and his brother. They ran helter­skelter and in

the melee, appellant’s brother ­ Ram Prasad Pandey fell

down since he suffered firearm injuries. His brother was

taken to the District Hospital, from where he was referred to

Allahabad Swaroop Rani Hospital when he breathed his last

during the treatment. In that light, the FIR was registered

against the persons named therein which include the private

respondents in the first set of the three appeals, under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 and 120B IPC and

Section 27/30 of Arms Act. It is in the said proceedings, the

accused Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and

Raj Kumar Maurya had filed petitions under Section 439

Cr.PC seeking grant of bail. The same being allowed by the

High Court, the complainant is before this Court seeking

that the order be set aside.

5. In respect of the same incident alleged to have

occurred on 08.05.2020 yet another FIR bearing No.407 of

5 2020 was registered based on the complaint lodged by

Sarvesh Tiwari on 12.05.2020 at 16:14 hours. In the said

complaint, it was stated by Sarvesh Tiwari that he is a

resident of Sagra Village and he works as a property dealer

in Ranjitpur Chilbila. He has alleged that on 08.05.2020,

the brokers of the land belonging to Ram Prasad Pandey,

Laxman Prasad Pandey, Vishnu Pandey being accompanied

with the others named in the complaint and being armed

with illegal weapons came there. Due to previous enmity,

with the intention to kill them started indiscrete firing on

the complainant and the others present. His cousin brother

Anand Tiwari and also Rahul Tiwari @ Monu and Anjani

Shukla sustained gunshot injuries and fell to the ground.

The attacking party had presumed them to be dead and

went away abusing them. In that view, the complainant

sought action against them. The said crime No.407 of 2020

was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC. In the

second set of appeals relating to the said FIR No.407 of

2020, the persons accused therein namely Laxman Prasad

Pandey, Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Subhash Saini, Pramod

Pandey, Ratnakar Dwivedi and Vikas Chandra Mishra filed

6 petitions before the High Court under Section 438 of IPC

seeking grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected.

The rejection of the anticipatory bail by the learned Single

Judge is assailed in the second set of appeals.

6. As already indicated, since all the above noted

appeals arise out of the same alleged incident dated

08.05.2020 and the nature of consideration would be the

same in all these cases, they are considered together.

7. We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior

counsel along with Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, learned counsel for

the appellants, Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for

the State of U.P. and Mr. Sameer Kumar, learned counsel

for the private respondents in all these appeals.

8. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has

taken us through the contents of FIR No.406 of 2020 and in

that light has pointed out to the post­mortem report dated

09.05.2020 wherein the contents reveal that Ram Prasad

Pandey, the deceased brother of the complainant had

suffered external injuries such as, wound caused by firearm.

In that light, it is contended that when the case registered

against the accused is for the grave offences which include 7 the offence under Section 302 IPC and the provisions of the

Arms Act, the learned Single Judge ought to have

appropriately recorded his satisfaction before exercising the

discretion to enlarge on bail. It is contended that in the

instant case, the learned Single Judge except referring to the

rival contention has not analysed the same for recording his

satisfaction. Observations of a general nature is made and

ordered to enlarge the accused on bail. It is contended that

such consideration is contrary to the position of law

enunciated by this Court in the case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh

Kumar @ Polia & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118. The learned

counsel had also made detailed reference to the other

material on record to contend that the order to enlarge the

accused on bail, in FIR No.406 of 2020 is liable to be set

aside.

9. Insofar as the appeals filed by the accused in case

relating to FIR No.407 of 2020 Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned

senior counsel appearing for the appellants therein

contended that the said complaint is filed only as a counter

blast. It was an afterthought and filed as late as on

8 12.05.2020. Though in the FIR the alleged offence is

registered under Section 307 IPC as well, the medical

certificate relating to Anand Tiwari who is stated to be

injured as per the complainant, has suffered only simple

injuries caused due to hard and blunt object. In such event,

when the persons named in the said FIR are available to

cooperate in the investigation, the petition filed by them

seeking anticipatory bail ought to have been appropriately

considered by the learned Single Judge and anticipatory bail

ought to have been granted. It is further contended that the

receipts dated 28.05.2018 and 29.06.2018 would indicate

that Sarvesh Tiwari had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­

(Rupees three lakhs) from Laxman Prasad Pandey which

was to be returned. He and his brother were attacked when

they legitimately sought return of the money. In that

circumstance, Sarvesh Tiwari and others named in FIR

No.406 of 2020 are the aggressors. In such event, there is

no reason to deny the appellants the benefit of anticipatory

bail sought by the appellants.

10. The learned counsel for the private respondents with

reference to the counter­affidavit filed on their behalf sought

9 to contend that the learned Single Judge having taken note

of the contentions relating to the case in FIR No.406 of 2020

and also the period of incarceration had granted bail to the

accused which is justified. It is contended that when the

learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion, the same

would not call for interference.

11. Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for the State,

with reference to the factual aspects has contended that

though two FIRs are registered, as evident, the matter

relates to the same incident dated 08.05.2020 where there

has been a group clash by using firearms which resulted in

indiscriminate firing. As such, in either case the accused in

both the set of cases are not entitled to be released on bail.

The learned counsel has also referred to the criminal history

of the persons involved. It is contended that the

investigation in the case relating to FIR No.407 of 2020

could not be concluded as the accused did not cooperate

after obtaining interim protection in the appeal seeking

anticipatory bail. Further, the injured person is still

undergoing treatment. Hence, the learned counsel seeks

that the bail granted to the accused in Crime No.406 of

10 2020 be cancelled and the appeals relating to FIR No.407 of

2020 be dismissed.

12. In the above backdrop, a perusal of the order dated

16.03.2021 in the proceedings relating to FIR No.406 of

2020 in Bail Application No.1694 of 2021 indicates that the

learned Judge though has taken note of details of the

incident and the contention of the learned counsel for the

parties, has not analysed the same to record the satisfaction

to enlarge the accused on bail. The ultimate reason and

conclusion adopted by the learned Single Judge reads as

hereunder: ­

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.”

The nature of consideration is similar in the order dated

17.12.2020 and 26.07.2021 passed in Bail Application

Nos.9559 of 2020 and 3876 of 2021 relating to the other two

accused in FIR No.406 of 2020.

13. In that background, a perusal of the decision

rendered by a Two Judge Bench of this Court in Mahipal 11 (supra) authored by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reads as

hereunder: ­

“24. There is another reason why the judgment of the learned Single Judge has fallen into error. It is a sound exercise of judicial discipline for an order granting or rejecting bail to record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power. In the present case, the assessment by the High Court is essentially contained in a single para which reads:

“4. Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.”

25. Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that

12 those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty­bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.”

14. While arriving at such conclusion in the case of

Mahipal (supra), the Hon’ble Bench of this Court had inter

alia referred to an earlier decision of this Court in Kalyan

Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528

wherein another Bench of this Court, authored by Justice

Santosh Hegde had held as hereunder: ­

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non­ application of mind.”

15. In that background, reverting to the present facts, it is

noticed that the conclusion recorded by the learned Single

Judge extracted supra is almost verbatim similar to the

portion which is extracted and disapproved by this Court in

13 Mahipal’s case noted supra. It is noticed that with such

sweeping observation made by the learned Single Judge,

Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar

Maurya the accused in FIR No.406 of 2020 have been

ordered to be enlarged on bail though the charges

thereunder are grave, which include Section 302 IPC and

Section 27/30 of the Arms Act. The allegation is of

indiscriminate firing which has also resulted in the death of

Ram Prasad Pandey, the brother of the complainant. It is no

doubt true, that the investigation has been carried out in

the said case and the chargesheet is stated to have been

filed. Further, the fact that the said accused persons had

spent 10, 7 and 4 months respectively in custody seems to

have weighed with the Court which could not have been a

mitigating factor when charges of such serious nature are to

be tried. The details furnished by the learned senior counsel

for the State would indicate that seven other cases are

registered against one of the accused named Raj Kumar

Maurya who is also alleged to be a part of the group of the

accused in the instant case. In such circumstance, when the

said persons are also stated to have been attacked by the

14 rival group as alleged in the counter complaint of Sarvesh

Tiwari in FIR No.407 of 2020 and the investigation is not yet

complete in the said proceedings, it would not be

appropriate for the said persons who were part of one group

which had clashed against the other to be in a position to

alter the nature of consideration when ultimately a

composite investigation to complete the process in FIR

No.407 of 2020 would also be necessary. Therefore, at the

outset, when it is noted that Ram Prasad Pandey died due to

firearm wound suffered by him and both the FIR No.406 of

2020 and FIR No.407 of 2020 referred to the indiscriminate

use of firearm in the clash, the release of the accused in FIR

No.406 of 2020 at this juncture was not justified, more

particularly in a circumstance where the learned Single

Judge has not recorded his satisfaction with regard to the

specific details of the case and the reason for which each of

the accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail. At this

stage, in any event the role of each member in either group

is not clear.

16. Similarly, the complaint lodged in FIR No.407 of 2020

discloses that the allegation made against the appellants in

15 the second set of appeal is also of grave nature; to the effect

that the accused persons were armed with illegal weapons

and due to the previous enmity, they had come there with

intention to kill the complainant and his associates. In that

regard, it is alleged that the accused had indulged in

indiscriminate firing on the complainant, his cousin brother

Anand Tiwari, Rahul Tiwari, Anjani Shukla and that they fell

down on sustaining gunshot injury. As against the said

allegations, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for

the said appellants while seeking to justify the prayer for

grant of anticipatory bail has made strenuous attempt to

contend that the said complaint is belated and lodged as a

counter blast though there is no truth in the allegations. In

that regard, in order to contend that Anand Tiwari had not

suffered gunshot injury, has referred to the medical

certificate wherein the opinion expressed is that the injuries

which were shown to be lacerated wound are simple in

nature caused due to hard and blunt object.

17. Though such contention is put forth, we are unable to

appreciate the same in favour of the said appellants to

consider grant of anticipatory bail, for more than one

16 reason. Firstly, the delay as alleged in filing the complaint

would not be material at this stage since the ultimate

reference is to the very same incident dated 08.05.2020. The

allegation in the complaint dated 12.05.2020 is not relating

to any other subsequent incident so as to deem it as a

complaint filed as being in the nature of counter blast.

Further, the very complaint registered at the behest of

Laxman Prasad Pandey in FIR No.406 of 2020 would

indicate that in his complaint, he has inter alia stated thus ­

“in the meanwhile, Aditya Singh and Monu caught hold of the

appellants’ brother and thereby snatched his licensed pistol”.

The said statement in his own complaint would indicate that

the group including the complainant in FIR No.406 of 2020

who are the accused in FIR No.407 of 2020 and are seeking

for grant of anticipatory bail were also armed with firearm

when they had gone to the said spot where the incident

occurred. If that be the position, it is too premature at this

stage to arrive at any conclusion as to which group was the

aggressor and the manner in which the firing had erupted

and also the weapons that were used. These are all matters

to be looked into during the investigation of the pending

17 complaint and for the purpose of framing charges and the

consequent trial. In addition, though the injuries suffered by

Anand Tiwari is contended to be a simple injury, the counter

statement filed on behalf of the respondents, more

particularly the State of Uttar Pradesh would indicate that

one of the reasons given for incompletion of the investigation

is that the injured is still undergoing treatment which

makes it obvious that he has suffered more than the simple

injuries referred to by the learned counsel. Therefore, if all

these aspects are kept in view, the allegations are of serious

nature which would require a detailed investigation and

recovery of weapons in the course of investigation which is

yet to be completed. In that view, it is not a fit case where

the appellants in the second set of appeal need to be

protected by grant of anticipatory bail.

18. In the above background, in both the set of cases the

composite consideration would be required in the further

process of investigation, framing charges and trial. That

apart, as noticed, one among the accused namely Raj

Kumar Maurya who has a criminal history was also a part of

one of the groups involved in the incident which occurred on

18 08.05.2020 and in that circumstance when the case has

been registered under Section 302 and in the second FIR

under Section 307, in addition to Section 149 IPC, in both

the cases, the bail granted to the appellants in the first set

of cases would not be justified. Further, as indicated supra,

the appellants in the second set of cases would also not be

entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, though it would be

open to them to surrender and seek for regular bail on its

own merits.

19. For all the afore­stated reasons, the following order: ­

(i) The orders dated 16.03.2021, 17.12.2020 and

26.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge

in Bail Applications No.1694/2021; 9559/2020

and 3876/2021 are set aside and the bail

granted by the High Court is set aside.

(ii) The bail bonds executed by Anjani Kumar

Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar

Maurya shall stand cancelled and the said

accused shall be taken to custody.

(iii) The Criminal Appeal No.1551/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)

No.3285/2021; Criminal Appeal No.1554­

19 1555/2021 @ SLP (Crl.) Nos.5605­5606/2021

and Criminal Appeal No.1553/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)

No. 5539/2021) are allowed accordingly.

(iv) The Criminal Appeal No.1556/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)

No.6061/ 2021; Criminal Appeal No.1552/2021

@ SLP (Crl.) No.3226/2021; Criminal Appeal No.

1558/2021 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6611/2021) and

Criminal Appeal No.1557/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)

No.6569/2021 seeking for an order of

anticipatory bail are dismissed.

(v) The interim orders passed during the pendency

of these proceedings shall stand dissolved.

(vi) It will be open for the appellants in Criminal

Appeal Nos.1556/2021, 1552/2021, 1558/2021

and 1557/2021 to surrender and seek for

regular bail which shall be considered on its own

merits, in accordance with law.

(vii) This order shall not be an impediment for the

trial court or High Court to consider applications

of any of the accused at the appropriate stage.

All contentions in that regard are kept open. The

20 observation herein shall not be considered as an

expression of opinion on merits of the case.

(viii) Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

....………….…………………………...……. J.

(DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

….....…………………………….……………J. (A.S. BOPANNA)

New Delhi, December 11, 2021

21