Sandeep Pandey Thru. His Father Chandra ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1504 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sandeep Pandey Thru. His Father Chandra ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 2 July, 2025

Author: Sangeeta Chandra

Bench: Sangeeta Chandra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37308-DB
 
Court No. - 9
 
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 183 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Sandeep Pandey Thru. His Father Chandra Bhan Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Vikram Shahi,Gyan Sagar Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
 

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus thereby commanding the opposite parties to produce the person of the detainee-Sandeep Pandey before this Hon'ble Court so as to ensure his welfare and well-being as guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to explain as to by what authority and for what reason they detained him since 06.05.2025.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus to declare the arrest/detention of petitioner illegal and release the petitioner from illegal custody of respondents."

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been illegally detained by the State-respondents and is currently lodged in District Jail, Lucknow. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR, pursuant to which the petitioner has been lodged in jail, mentions the names of the accused as Rashid Naseem, Aasif Naseem, Ruksar, Gian Prakash, Amit Dwivedi, and Sandeep Pandey, it does not mention their parentage and the petitioner has although worked in Shine City Corporation in the capacity of a broker. He is not the same Sandeep Pandey, who induced the informant in depositing money in 'Nature Valley Project' being run by Shine City Corporation. The petitioner has never met the complainant.

4. It is further submitted that there was one other Sandeep Pandey, who was working in Shine City Corporation as President of its unit known as King of Spartan Team. The petitioner's father namely Chandra Bhan Pandey, who is resident of District Gonda whereas the other Sandeep Pandey President of King of Spartan Team, who also worked with the Shine City Corporation allegedly induced the informant to deposit money in 'Nature Valley Project' is the son of one R.K. Pandey, who lives in Bareilly. Only because the name of the petitioner is similar to the other accused Sandeep Pandey, the petitioner has been detained on the order passed by the Trial Court concerned.

5. Learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the habeas corpus petition as the petitioner has been lodged in jail on the basis of remand order passed by the Trial Court which has not been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner has been lodged in jail on the basis of a judicial order and no challenge being raised to the judicial order, it cannot be said that his custody is illegal, therefore, the habeas corpus petition should be dismissed at the outset as not maintainable.

6. It has also been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents that a short counter affidavit has been filed in the said writ petition by the Inspector, Economic Offence Wing, Police Headquarters, Lucknow wherein it has been specifically stated that the informant has identified the petitioner Sandeep Pandey S/o Chandra Bhan Pandey as the person, who had induced the petitioner to deposit money in 'Nature Valley Project' of Shine City Corporation. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has two accounts; one in ICICI Bank and the other in HDFC Bank. For opening the account in HDFC Bank, Branch at Gomati Nagar, Lucknow the petitioner has used his Voter ID Card No. TDQ3041433 which was verified by the District Election Officer, Lucknow. After verification, the petitioner opened the said account in HDFC Bank. Such verification was later on found to be incorrect and the documents/Voter ID Card was found forged, a copy of the report of the Additional City Magistrate IV/Voter Registration Officer dated 22.5.2025 has been filed as SCA-1 to the short counter affidavit.

7. It has further been submitted that the petitioner maintained another account in ICICI Bank, Branch at Ashiyana where more than rupees seventy lacs have been transferred by Shine City Company. Sufficient evidence have been collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner Sandeep Pandey S/o Chandra Bhan Pandey and he was arrested on 6.5.2025 and produced before the Trial Court, who has sent him on judicial remand to District Jail where he is currently lodged. On the same facts as mentioned by the petitioner in this writ petition, he had filed a bail application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Lucknow bearing Bail Application No. 3478 of 2025 and the Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents produced by the prosecution did not find it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail and rejected his bail application on 27.5.2025, a copy of said order has also been filed as Annexure SCA-2 to the short counter affidavit. The petitioner has not challenged the judicial remand order. It has also been stated in the short counter affidavit that the petitioner is an extremely clever person maintaining two identities; one as son of R.K. Pandey resident of Bareilly and other as son of Chandra Bhan Pandey resident of Gonda and several other cases have also been filed against him making him an accused, detailed criminal history of the petitioner has been filed as SCA-3 to the short counter affidavit.

8. This Court finds from the contents of the short counter affidavit that the specific case of the State-respondents shows that Sandeep Pandey S/o Chandra Bhan Pandey resident of District Gonda is the same person as Sandeep Pandey S/o R.K. Pandey resident of District Bareilly and by creating two identities and opening of two different bank accounts, he has been successful in fooling unsuspecting members of the public at large into depositing huge amount of money in Shine City Corporation.

9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit to the said short counter affidavit, which has been taken on record and has stated that the short counter affidavit has been filed by the said Investigating Officer, who is only Investigating Officer in FIR No. 583 of 2018 and it cannot be said that he has knowledge of every aspect of the case as the matter also relates to FIR No. No. 107 of 2020. It has also been stated that the petitioner never worked in King of Spartan Team of Shine City Corporation. All the accused mentioned in FIR in question are members of King of Spartan Team of Shine City Corporation and Sandeep Pandey S/o R.K. Pandey was holding the post of President in the King of Spartan Team and the Investigating Officer has deliberately filed a false affidavit after arresting the petitioner on 6.5.2025 mistakenly.

10. It has also been contended that the report on which the Investigating Officer has relied to find the Voter ID Card as forged is also unfounded. It has also been stated that the petitioner belongs to a well-connected family and some employees of erstwhile Shine City Corporation are inimical to him and have misled the Investigating Officer. It has been stated that the learned Magistrate has said to verify the documents produced by the Investigating Officer in implicating the petitioner.

11. Having gone through the rejoinder affidavit, we find that there is an admission on the part of the petitioner that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Lucknow has rejected his bail application. The order of the judicial remand has not been challenged by the petitioner before this Court, therefore, his custody cannot be said to be illegal.

12. In view of the observations made hereinabove, habeas corpus writ petition stands dismissed.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after the order has been passed, has placed reliance upon the paragraph nos. 79 and 80 of the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 13 SCC 542 stating that the habeas corpus writ petition is maintainable even against a judicial order of remand and this Court, after going through the judgement of the Apex Court as cited before us, finds it appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 76 to 80 where the Apex Court considered the question "whether a writ of habeas corpus lies against an order of remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C.". The paragraph nos. 76 to 80 read as under:

"76. A habeas corpus petition is one seeking redress in the case of illegal detention. It is intended to be a most expeditious remedy as liberty is at stake. Whether a habeas corpus petition lies when a person is remanded to judicial custody or police custody is not res integra. We may notice only two judgments of this Court. In Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarate, we may notice para 24 : (SCC p. 324)

"24. The act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial function. The Magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering the detention of an accused. While exercising this judicial act, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand or, to put it differently, whether there exist reasonable grounds to commit the accused to custody and extend his remand. The purpose of remand as postulated under Section 167 is taht investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order or remand automatically or in a mechanical manner."

77. However, the Court also held as follows: (Manubhai Ratilal Patel case, SCC p.326, para 31)

"31. ... It is well-accepted principle that a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by the competent cout by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal. As has been stated in B. Ramachandra Rao and Kanu Sanyal, the court is required to scrutinise the legality or otherwise of the order of detention which has been passed. Unless the court is satisfied that a person has been committed to jail custody by virtue of an order that suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction or absolute illegality, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted."

78. One of us (U.U. Lalit, J.) speaking for a Bench of two, followed the aforesaid line of thought in the decision of Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modil and held as follows: (SCC p. 289, para 21)

"21. The act of directing remand of an accused is thus held to be a judicial function and the challenge to the order of remand is not to be entertained in a habeas corpus petition."

79. We may also notice para 19 from the same judgment: (Rahul Modi case, SCC p. 285)

"19. The law is thus clear that 'in habeas corpus proceedings a court is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of the return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings'."

80. Thus, we would hold as follows: If the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a habeas corpus petition would indeed lie. Equally, if an order of remand is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner, the person affected can seek the remedy of habeas corpus. Barring such situations, a habeas corpus petition will not lie."

14. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court as aforesaid, we have examined the order dated 27.5.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Lucknow rejecting the bail application of the petitioner which is the only order brought on record by the State-respondents whereas the petitioner has not brought the order of judicial remand of the Magistrate on record and find that the arguments which have been raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are similar to the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner in bail application and comments submitted by the Investigating Officer of the Economic Offence Wing are also the same. The Additional District and Sessions Judge after perusal of the case diary has observed in paragraph no. 7 that initially FIR was lodged in Police Station-Bakshi Ka Talab and the matter was later on transfer in Economic Offence Wing. The statement of account of Sandeep Pandey bearing ICICI Bank Account No. 126001503080 shows transactions between him and the Shine City is of more than rupees seventy lacs and the Pan Card which was used by Sandeep Pandey bearing no. VMAPP0924M shows the name of his father as Chandra Bhan Pandey and his date of birth as 14.8.1990. The petitioner-Sandeep Pandey, who was the applicant has shown his parentage in his bail application and in his Aadhar Card as son of Chandra Bhan Pandey with the same date of birth. He has also admitted transactions between Shine City Corporation and the petitioner in his ICICI account number as aforesaid. It has been observed that the petitioner was an instrumental in helping Shine City Corporation in fooling the people and there is no dispute regarding the identity of Sandeep Pandey as has been raised in the bail application.

15. This Court having gone through the paragraph nos. 76 to 80 of the aforesaid cited judgement in Gautam Navlakha (Supra) and also gone through the facts of the said case which are entirely different and finds that no case can be treated as a binding precedent without considering the factual context in which it was delivered.

16. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the present habeas corpus writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.7.2025

AKK