# Balwant Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr. 454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 453
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5376 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/balwant-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-anr-454-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-53702
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

G.A., Mahesh Kumar Shukla

Issue for Consideration
The primary question before the Court was
whether the lower court erred in rejecting the
appellant's bail application.

Headnotes
Criminal law-SC/ST Act-S. 14-A(2),3(2)(V)
-Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,2023-Ss. 191(2),
191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2),
118(1), 109-
Delayed FIR-Cross-case-No recovery-both
sides
sustained
injuries-no
criminal
history- The court held that the lower
court
erred
in
rejecting
the
bail
application
and
the
impugned
order
suffered from infirmity and illegalityAppeal allowed.

Held
The court found that the appellant had made
out a case for bail, considering the facts and
circumstances, nature of offence, evidence,
complicity, role assigned and nature of injuryAppeal allowed and the impugned order was set
aside.(Para 8 to 11) (E-6)

List of Acts
Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, SC/ST Act,1986

List of Keywords
SC/ST Act. BNS , recovery of weapon , criminal
history, illegality, personal bond, injury.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION-CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. - 5376 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Balwant Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant:
Rohit Shukla
Advs. for Respondent:
G.A., Mahesh Kumar Shukla

## Text

8 All. Balwant Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
453

50. Having regard to the contentions
raised on behalf of the parties, the Court
has come to the conclusion that the Appeal
No. 680 of 2022 filed by the informant is
devoid of merits, as also discussed in
Appeal No. 4922 of 2018 and in entirety of
the arguments raised in both the appeals.
Hence the Criminal Appeal No. 680 of
2022 is liable to be dismissed. No case is
made out to convict the accused under
Section
302
IPC.
Hence
dismissed
accordingly.

51. Now coming to the question of
modification of sentence of the accusedappellants
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants has submitted that about 11
months have already gone from the date of
incident and from the evidence on record it
is not clearly established whether the
victim died on account of accident or as a
result of injuries inflicted by the accusedappellants persons. Learned counsel for the
appellants has also relied upon the
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
cases of Dattatraya Vs. The State of
Maharashtra reported in AIROnline 2024
SC 196, Shahid Ali Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in AIROnline 2024 SC
129,
Kariman
Vs.
The
State
of
Chhattisgarh reported in AIROnline 2024
SC 422, Devendra Singh Vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in AIROnline
2024 SC 598 and Hussainbhai Asgarali
Lokhandwala Vs. The State of Gujarat
reported in AIROnline 2024 SC 525
wherein
accused
persons
have
been
released for a period which they have been
undergone incarceration and the conviction
has been altered from Section 302 IPC to
Section 304 Part II IPC. He further
submitted that appellants are old age
persons and pleaded that their sentence to
be reduced to the period which they have
already undergone behind the bars. The
appellants have already undergone a
sentence of more than 11 months and 12
days. We find that the said sentence would
sub serve the ends of justice. Therefore, the
appellants are sentenced to the period
already undergone.

52. The appeal stands partly allowed.
The judgment and order of the trial court
on conviction is upheld and sentencing the
appellant is modified. Hence, all the
appellants (other than Prayag Yadav) are
sentenced to the period already undergone
by each of them, however, imposed fine is
enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- each, which shall
be paid by the appellants to the victim
within one month from their release.

53.
The
appellants
be
released
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
Bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled
and sureties discharged. The appellants are
directed to furnish bail bonds U/s. 437-A
Cr.P.C. within a week from their release.

54. Let a copy of this judgment and
order be sent to the court concerned
alongwith the trial court record within a
week for compliance. The compliance
report shall be sent by the court concerned
to this Court within a further period of
fifteen days.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 453
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5376 of 2025

Balwant Pandey ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
Rohit Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Mahesh Kumar Shukla

Issue for Consideration
The primary question before the Court was
whether the lower court erred in rejecting the
appellant's bail application.

Headnotes
Criminal law-SC/ST Act-S. 14-A(2),3(2)(V)
-Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,2023-Ss. 191(2),
191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2),
118(1), 109-
Delayed FIR-Cross-case-No recovery-both
sides
sustained
injuries-no
criminal
history- The court held that the lower
court
erred
in
rejecting
the
bail
application
and
the
impugned
order
suffered from infirmity and illegalityAppeal allowed.

Held
The court found that the appellant had made
out a case for bail, considering the facts and
circumstances, nature of offence, evidence,
complicity, role assigned and nature of injuryAppeal allowed and the impugned order was set
aside.(Para 8 to 11) (E-6)

List of Acts
Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, SC/ST Act,1986

List of Keywords
SC/ST Act. BNS , recovery of weapon , criminal
history, illegality, personal bond, injury.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION-CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. - 5376 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Balwant Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant:
Rohit Shukla
Advs. for Respondent:
G.A., Mahesh Kumar Shukla
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. In this case notice has already been
served upon the informant and also counter
affidavit and supplementary affidavits have
been filed.

2. The present criminal appeal under
Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been
filed by the appellant- Balwant Pandey to set
aside the order dated 12.05.2025 in Bail
Application No. 686 of 25 and to release him
on bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2025, under
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2) 117(2),
352, 351(2), 118(1), 109 BNS & Section
3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat,
District Mirzapur.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant,
the learned AGA for the State, Sri Mahesh
Kumar Shukla for respondent no. 2 and perused
the entire record.

4. According to the prosecution case, the
FIR of the incident has been lodged on the same
day stating therein that when the informant was
returning from his field, on the way the accused
appellant met him and assaulted him and there
persons. There is delayed FIR of 10 hours and
no weapon has been recovered from the
possession of the appellant.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the appellant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in this case. The
appellant has not committed any offence as
alleged in the impugned FIR. Further
submission is that the prosecution story is
totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients
to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act
are lacking in the matter. Appellant is
languishing in jail since 26.03.2025. Learned
counsel for the appellant next submitted that it
8 All. Girjesh Chaudhari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
455
is a cross case, from both the sides FIRs have
been registered and both the sides have
sustained injuries. No weapon has been
recovered from the possession of the applicant
or at his pointing out. The appellant has no
criminal history. the sward has been shown in
the hands of one accused Gaurav Tiwari.
Further submission is that the impugned order
rejecting the bail application of the appellant
suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting
interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as
well as learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had have
submitted that the appellant committed the
present offence having knowledge that the
victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community.
There is no infirmity or illegality in the
impugned order.

7. I have considered the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the entire record including
the impugned order carefully.

8. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in view
the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity
of the accused, role assigned to the present
appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is
of the opinion that the appellant has made out a
case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting
the bail application of the appellant. The
impugned order suffers from infirmity and
illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside
and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and
the
impugned order
rejecting
the bail
application of the appellant is hereby set-aside.

10. Let the appellant-Balwant Pandey
involved in aforesaid case crime number be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
following conditions. Further, before issuing the
release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The appellant will not tamper with
the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/
intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The appellant will appear before
the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal
presence is exempted.

(iv) The appellant shall not commit
an offence similar to the offence of which he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which he is suspected.

(v) The appellant shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

11. In case of breach of any of the above
conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to
move bail cancellation application before this
Court.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 455
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7652 of 2025

Girjesh Chaudhari & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents