Anil Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4881 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 993 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Anil Pandey
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Narayan Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arvind Prabodh Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

Heard, Shri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and Shri Arvind Pabodh Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) has been preferred by the appellant challenging the cognizance order dated 19.03.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur in Session Case No.434 of 2020 (State Vs.Sunil Pandey and another) arising out of Case Crime No.365 of 2019, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) r, s SC/ST Act, Police Station-Chilautal, District-Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his prayer for a direction to grant him benefit of judgment and order dated 07.10.2021 of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another as the offences alleged are in which punishment of below seven years is provided.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 though opposed the appeal, but have no objection to the request of learned counsel for the appellant.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record this court finds that the cognizance has rightly been taken as the commissioning of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) r, s Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 are found, therefore, challenge to the impugned order is not sustainable and the prayer for quashing the impugned order and proceeding is declined. However, since the punishment provided for the offences, in which the cognizance has been taken, are below seven years, it is provided that in case, the appellant moves bail application before the trial court within fifteen days' from today, the same shall be decided within two weeks thereafter, in the light of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra).

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

.

.

........................................... (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

Order Date :- 2.6.2022

Banswar