# Pramod v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1195
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-01
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2447 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-51541
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 302 - Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 2(bd), 14
- Bail Application - Jurisdiction of Special Court
- Applicability of Cr.P.C. Provisions
The applicant, Pramod, sought bail in Case
Crime No. 363 of 2023 under Section 302 IPC,
lodged at Police Station Raya, District Mathura,
where he was in jail since 06.10.2023. The bail
application was rejected by the trial court on
01.12.2023. Although the case was being tried
by an Exclusive Special Court under the SC/ST
Act, the applicant was not chargesheeted under
the SC/ST Act, but only under Section 302 IPC.
The applicant argued no direct evidence, delay
in FIR lodgement, absence of incriminating
recovery,
and
no
criminal
history.
The
prosecution could not refute these claims. Held:
The court, relying on Sections 2(bd) and 14 of
the SC/ST Act, clarified that the Special Court's
jurisdiction is limited to offences under the
SC/ST Act, and since no such charges were
framed, the bail provisions of the Cr.P.C.
applied. The court found the delay in FIR, lack
of
direct
evidence,
incomplete
chain
of
circumstances, and the applicant's cooperation
and clean record justified bail. The bail
application was allowed with conditions to
ensure trial participation and non-interference
with evidence.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. Pramod Vs. State of U.P.
1195
retracted his confessional statements and in
the orders of arrest no reason has been
mentioned as to why after recording of the
statements of the applicant for many days
his arrest is required and also keeping view
that applicant is in jail in this case since
02.02.2024 and investigation appears to
have reached an advanced statge and
nothing has been shown before this Court
which mey justify the further detention of
the applicant in prison and also considering
that the alleged offence is punishable with
up to 5 years maximum punishment and
still no formal accusation in the form of
FIR or complaint has been filed by the
department and also keeping in view that in
such
circumstances
continuing
the
detention of the petitioner may not at all be
justified and it appears justified for this
court to strike a fine balance between the
need for further detention of the applicant
when even custodial interrogation has not
been claimed at all by the Department and
considering the right of an accused to
personal liberty, applicant may be released
on bail, however subject to certain
conditions.

45. In result, the instant bail
application moved by the applicant is,
hereby, allowed.

46.

Let
the
accused/applicant-
Deepanshu Srivastava involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject
to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall deposit
his passport before the Trial Court.

(ii) The applicant shall not sell
any property of himself or of any of the
companies in which he has a substantial
interest
and
which
are
under
investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall not
tamper with the prosecution evidence by
intimidating/pressurizing
the
witnesses,
during the investigation or trial.

(iv) The applicant shall cooperate
in the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(v) The applicant shall not
indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being
released on bail.

47. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

48. Identity, status and residence
proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the Court concerned before the
bonds are accepted.

49. Observations made herein-above
by this court are only for the purpose of
disposal of this bail application and shall
not be construed as an expression on the
merits of the case.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1195
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2447 of 2024

Pramod ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Prashant Yadav, Sri Rajeev Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Sri Mrityunjay Singh, Sri Kamlesh Kumar
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 302 - Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 2(bd), 14
- Bail Application - Jurisdiction of Special Court
- Applicability of Cr.P.C. Provisions
The applicant, Pramod, sought bail in Case
Crime No. 363 of 2023 under Section 302 IPC,
lodged at Police Station Raya, District Mathura,
where he was in jail since 06.10.2023. The bail
application was rejected by the trial court on
01.12.2023. Although the case was being tried
by an Exclusive Special Court under the SC/ST
Act, the applicant was not chargesheeted under
the SC/ST Act, but only under Section 302 IPC.
The applicant argued no direct evidence, delay
in FIR lodgement, absence of incriminating
recovery,
and
no
criminal
history.
The
prosecution could not refute these claims. Held:
The court, relying on Sections 2(bd) and 14 of
the SC/ST Act, clarified that the Special Court's
jurisdiction is limited to offences under the
SC/ST Act, and since no such charges were
framed, the bail provisions of the Cr.P.C.
applied. The court found the delay in FIR, lack
of
direct
evidence,
incomplete
chain
of
circumstances, and the applicant's cooperation
and clean record justified bail. The bail
application was allowed with conditions to
ensure trial participation and non-interference
with evidence.

Case Law Cited:

1. Pramod Vs St. of U.P., (2024) 3 ILRA,
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2447 of 2024,
decided on 01.03.2024 (All. HC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Matter is taken up in the revised
call.

2. By means of this bail application
the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on
bail in Case Crime No. 363 of 2023 at
Police Station- Raya, District- Mathura,
under Section 302 IPC. The applicant is in
jail since 06.10.2023.

3. The bail application of the
applicant was rejected by the learned trial
court on 01.12.2023.

4. The applicant was charge sheeted
under Section 302 IPC. Clearly the
applicant has not been charge sheeted for
any
offence
under
the
SC/ST
Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The
case is being tried by the exclusive special
court established under the SC/ST Act.

5. The offences under the SC/ST Act
are liable to be tried by the exclusive
special court defined under Section 2 (bd)
of the Act. The provision is extracted
hereunder:

"Section 2 (bd) Exclusive Special
Court means the Exclusive Special Court
established under sub-section (1) of section
14 exclusively to try the offences under this
Act."

6. The Special Courts are constituted
under Section 14 of the Act. The provision
is extracted hereunder:

"Section 14. Special Court and
Exclusive Special Court.--(1) For the
purpose of providing for speedy trial, the
State
Government
shall,
with
the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, by notification in the Official
Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special
Court for one or more Districts:

Provided that in Districts where
less number of cases under this Act is
recorded, the State Government shall, with
the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify for such Districts, the
Court of Session to be a Special Court to
try the offences under this Act:
3 All. Pramod Vs. State of U.P.
1197

Provided further that the Courts
so established or specified shall have power
to directly take cognizance of offences
under this Act.

(2) It shall be the duty of the State
Government to establish adequate number
of Courts to ensure that cases under this
Act are disposed of within a period of two
months, as far as possible.

(3) In every trial in the Special
Court or the Exclusive Special Court, the
proceedings shall be continued from dayto-day until all the witnesses in attendance
have been examined, unless the Special
Court or the Exclusive Special Court finds
the adjournment of the same beyond the
following day to be necessary for reasons
to be recorded in writing:]

Provided that when the trial
relates to an offence under this Act, the trial
shall, as far as possible, be completed
within a period of two months from the
date of filing of the charge sheet."

7. The legislative intent to establish
Exclusive Courts was to ensure that trials
for offences under the SC/ST Act are
expeditiously concluded and the special
procedures under the said Act are duly
adhered to. The protective provisions of
SC/ST Act was created for safeguarding the
interests of a defined section of the
citizenry. Apposite to extract the statement
of object and reasons which guided the
legislature while framing the enactment are
extracted hereunder:

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND
REASONS

Despite
various measures
to
improve the socio-economic conditions of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are
denied number of civil rights. They are
subjected to various offences, indignities,
humiliations and harassment. They have, in
several brutal incidents, been deprived of
their life and property. Serious crimes are
committed
against
them
for
various
historical, social and economic reasons.

2. Because of the awareness
created amongst the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes through spread of
education, etc., they are trying to assert
their rights and this is not being taken very
kindly by the others. When they assert their
rights and resist practices of untouchability
against them or demand statutory minimum
wages or refuse to do any bonded and
forced labour, the vested interests try to
cow them down and terrorise them. When
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or
honour of their women, they become
irritants for the dominant and the mighty.
Occupation and cultivation of even the
Government allotted land by the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented
and more often these people become
victims of attacks by the vested interests.
Of late, there has been an increase in the
disturbing trend of commission of certain
atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste
persons eat inedible substances like human
excreta and attacks on and mass killings of
helpless
Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled Tribes and rape of women
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances,
the existing laws like the Protection of
Civil Rights Act,1955 and the normal
provisions of the Indian Penal Code have
been found to be inadequate to check these
crimes. A special Legislation to check and
deter crimes against them committed by
non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled
Tribes has, therefore, become necessary.
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The term 'atrocity' has not been
defined so far. It is considered necessary
that not only the term 'atrocity' should be
defined but stringent measures should be
introduced
to
provide
for
higher
punishments for committing such atrocities.
It is also proposed to enjoining on the
States and the Union Territories to take
specific preventive and punitive measures
to protect the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes from being victimised
and where atrocities are committed, to
provide adequate relief and assistance to
rehabilitate them.

4. The Bill seeks to achieve the
above objects."

8. The Act also lays down certain
special procedures for protection of the
victims, and for prosecution of the accused.
The provisions of grant of bail for accused
under the SC/ST Act are distinct from
provisions of bail under the Cr.P.C.
However, the SC/ST Act is a criminal
enactment. The legislation has to be
construed strictly, and cannot be applied to
offences which do not fall within the ambit
of the SC/ST Act. The Special Courts draw
their jurisdiction to try offences from
Section 2(bd) of the Act. Section 2(bd) of
the Act clearly confines the jurisdiction of
the Courts to the offences under the SC/ST
Act. Since the applicant has not been
charge sheeted under the SC/ST Act, the
provisions pertaining to the SC/ST Act in
regard to the bail shall not be applied to the
case of the applicant.

9. Criminal cases in which the
accused are not chargesheeted under the
SC/ST Act are liable to be processed under
the provisions of Cr.P.C., even if the
offence is being tried by the special court
established under the SC/ST Act.

10. The following arguments made by
Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel on
behalf of the applicant, which could not be
satisfactorily refuted by Shri Kamlesh
Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of
Shri Mrityunjay Singh, learned counsel on
behalf of the informant and Shri Paritosh
Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the
record, entitle the applicant for grant of
bail:

1. The applicant has not been
chargesheeted under the SC/ST Act.

2. The incident occurred on
28.09.2023. The wife of the deceased who
is the first informant was informed by one
Manvendra Singh that the body of the
deceased was lying at a public place/
animal fare market.

3. The inquest was conducted on
29.09.2023 at about 10.30 AM. The
postmortem report was drawn up on
29.09.2023 at about 5.35 PM.

4. The FIR was got lodged on
02.10.2023 by the wife of the deceased.

5. Delay in lodgement of the FIR
in the facts of this case is fatal to the
prosecution case.

6. The FIR has been lodged after
due deliberation and at the instigation of
inimical parties in the village.

7. There is no direct evidence or
eye witness of the incident.

8. The chain of incriminating
circumstances against the applicant is not
complete.

9. The applicant was not last seen
in the company of the deceased at a time
proximate to the death of the latter.

10. No incriminating article has
been
recovered
from
the
applicant.
3 All. Himanshu Kanaujiya Vs. State of U.P.
1199

11. Prosecution evidence does not
connect the applicant with the offence.

12. The applicant does not have
any criminal history apart from this case.

13. The applicant is not a flight
risk. The applicant being a law abiding
citizen has always cooperated with the
investigation and undertakes to join the
trial proceedings. There is no possibility of
his influencing witnesses, tampering with
the evidence or reoffending.

11. In the light of the preceding
discussion
and
without
making
any
observations on the merits of the case, the
bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant- Pramod be
released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number, on furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court below. The
following conditions be imposed in the
interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper
with the evidence or influence any witness
during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1199
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2997 of
2024

Himanshu Kanaujiya ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vijai Prakash Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Sri Arunesh Kumar Singh, G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 & 471 - Bail Application -
Cheating and Forgery - Fake Job Scam -
Societal Impact of White-Collar Crimes -
The applicant, Himanshu Kanaujiya, sought bail
in Case Crime No. 369 of 2023 under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, Police Station
Kotwali, District Jaunpur, for allegedly cheating
the informant by promising a job, taking
Rs.1,60,000 via bank transfer and Rs.4,00,000
in cash, and providing a forged appointment
letter. The applicant, in jail since 01.12.2023,
claimed false implication, asserting the money
was a repayment to his mother and denying any
job
promise
or
forged
document.
The
prosecution highlighted the forged appointment
letter in the case diary, the Investigating
Officer's findings of fraud, and an additional
similar case (Case Crime No. 72 of 2024). Held:
The
court
rejected
the
bail
application,
emphasizing the gravity of the offense, the
applicant's involvement, and the societal harm
caused
by
fake
job
scams
exploiting
unemployed youth. The court noted that such
white-collar crimes, which jeopardize the future
of
victims,
require
severe
punishment.
Considering
the
evidence,
the
applicant's
criminal history, and the risk of further offenses,
no grounds for bail were found. The court
directed communication of the order to the
Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director
General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, for further
action.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)