# Navjyot Singh Siddhu v. State of - **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 330 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2007-12-26 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21846 of 2008 - **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/navjyot-singh-siddhu-v-state-of-41377 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 439un-natural offence committed with 11 years boy injury on private part reported-plea regarding juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children Act 2000)-kept open to raise before trail 2 All] Pankaj Kashyap V. State of U.P. 331 court-other plea regarding confinement in jail long period-violation of personal liberty held misconceived can not be treated in violation of Art 21 of Constitution bail rejected. Held: Para 8- In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicant can not be admitted to bail in this heinous crime of unnatural offence. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be pre-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Case Law discussed: 2008(63) ACC 115 ## Text 330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 enquiry may be held to consider his conduct dehorse the conviction and punishment in the criminal trial, and may require a reasonable opportunity to be given to him. Once a conclusion is reached that the conduct is such, which deserves and justifies the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the proviso will become applicable and the disciplinary authority will not be held obliged to conduct departmental enquiry. For example, if a civil servant is in a situation, where he has to save the honour of a member of his family, or an act which may have resulted out of self defence or out of grave and sudden provocation, he acts or uses a weapon, which comes into his hands and which may cause the death of a person, the appointing authority may not find his conduct to be such, which deserves the punishment of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. It is not possible nor it is prudent for the Court to classify or give guidelines for taking these decisions. It is better to leave it to the discretion of the appointing authority to consider such facts and circumstances and to decide whether it is appropriate to dispense with the departmental enquiry and to allow a person to explain the circumstances, in which his conduct had led to prosecution and conviction. 13. Further there may be circumstances, as have been spelled out in Navjyot Singh Siddhu vs. State of Punjab AIR 2007 SC 1003, and in which a person may apply to the appellate court to stay his conviction for allowing the person to continue him in service. 14. In the present case the appointing authority has not applied his mind, after reading the judgement of conviction and punishment, in forming an opinion, that the conduct of the petitioner was such which did not require to provide to him an opportunity of hearing before the petitioner was dismissed from service. 15. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26.12.2007 passed by respondent no. 2 dismissing petitioner's services only on the ground of his conviction under Section 302, I49 IPC in Sessions Trial No.287 of 2000 dated 29.11.2007 is set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's conduct, which led to his conviction and punishment and to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law and the observations made in this judgment. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21846 of 2008 Pankaj Kashyap ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Yashwant Singh Sri Pramod Tiwari Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 439un-natural offence committed with 11 years boy injury on private part reported-plea regarding juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children Act 2000)-kept open to raise before trail 2 All] Pankaj Kashyap V. State of U.P. 331 court-other plea regarding confinement in jail long period-violation of personal liberty held misconceived can not be treated in violation of Art 21 of Constitution bail rejected. Held: Para 8- In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicant can not be admitted to bail in this heinous crime of unnatural offence. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be pre-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Case Law discussed: 2008(63) ACC 115 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.) 1. Heard Sri Yashwant Singh, Advocate appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State and also perused the entire material on record. 2. An FIR was lodged on 10.07.2007 at P.S. Baradari, Bareilly impleading the applicant as accused. The said FIR was lodged by Mohd. Mian s/o Babban Mian. 3. The allegation made in the FIR, in brief, are that the applicant Pankaj Kashyap committed unnatural offence (sodomy) on Razat @ Mohd. Ali, aged about 10-11 years, son of complainant. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that due to dispute of tenancy, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no such incident as alleged in the FIR had occurred. Next submission is that the applicant was also minor at the time of alleged incident and hence, on the ground of being juvenile, the applicant deserves bail. Last submission made by the learned counsel is that the applicant is in jail since 11.07.2007 and hence on the ground of long incarceration in jail, he deserves bail now, as due to delay in trial, his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated. 5. The bail has bee opposed by the learned AGA on the ground that at the time of medical examination of the victim, injuries were found on his private part and the victim has supported the FIR version in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and hence, in this heinous crime, the applicant should not be admitted to bail. 6. So far as the plea of applicant being juvenile is concerned, the applicant has not filed any document to show that the age of the applicant was below eighteen years on the date of offence. If the applicant was below eighteen years on the date of offence as contended now then, this plea can be taken in the trial court. If such plea is taken, inquiry may be made by the trial court concerned regarding age of the applicant and if the applicant is found below eighteen years on the date of offence, then he may move fresh bail application on this ground, which shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. 7. Annexure (2) is the copy of the medical report of the victim, who was 332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 medically examined on 10.07.2007. This report shows that injuries were found on private part (anus) of the victim. In his statement recorded under section 161Cr.P.C, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, having regard to all these facts, but without expressing any opinion of merit, in this heinous crime, the applicant does not deserve bail. 8. In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicant can not be admitted to bail in this heinous crime of unnatural offence. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be pre-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. Consequently, the bail prayer of the applicant Pankaj Kashyap is hereby rejected. 10. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months applying the provisions of section 309 Cr. P.C. by making sincere efforts and avoiding unnecessary adjournment. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned for necessary action. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17343 of 2009 Shashi Kala Patel ...Petitioner Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bindki, District, Fatehpur and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Awadhesh Kumar Sri Manish Goyal Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vishal Tandon S.C. Constitution of India Article-226-Election of village Pradhan-by impugned order the S.D.O. directed for recounting by deciding all of 10 issues jointly-without discussion of evidence of parties-held totally unjustified. Held: Para 6 If the issue are framed in a case, then the same should be decided either individually or two or more any be grouped, if they are inter related. In the present case, all the ten issues have been decided merely in one stroke without discussing the evidence of the parties. The same appears to be totally unjustified. An election petition is to be decided strictly in terms of the rules and even though there may be difference of one vote and the order of recounting has been passed only on the basis of evidence adduced and by a reasoned order, when a case of irregularity in recounting of votes has been made out.