Shivam vs State of U.P. And Another on 5 April, 2021

Spread the love

Post Views: 817

Shivam vs State of U.P. And Another on 5 April, 2021

Equivalent Citations:	2021:AHC:49266
Date of Judgement:	5^thApril 2021
Court:	Allahabad High Court
Case No. :	Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. – 2110 Of 2021
Court No. :	73
Appellant:	Shivam
Respondent:	State of U.P. and Another
Bench:	Hon’ble Siddharth,J.
Statutes Referred:	• The Workmen’ S Compensation Act, 1923 • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 160 and 204. • Article 21 in The Constitution of India 1949 • Section 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C • Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Other case cited:	• Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors • Chaudhary Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. And 2 Other on 11 October, 2022 • Smt. Shanti Rani Agarwal vs State of U.P. And Another on 31 May, 2023 • Sudhir Tiwari @ Sudish Kumar … vs State of U.P. And Another on 27 September, 2022

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case of Shivan vs. State of U.P. revolves around an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant who was accused of committing offenses under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC (Indian Penal Code), and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by a journalist who alleged that the accused, along with other co-accused, had abused him using derogatory caste-based slurs like “dhed chamaar” and also threatened to kill him if he continued his journalism work. They also insulted him by invoking the names of his mother and sister, indicating that they were aware of the informant’s caste.

The applicant contended that the charge sheet was submitted without collecting any evidence against him. He argued that he was not involved in the intimidation or insult of the informant in public view, which formed the basis for the offense under the SC/ST Act. The applicant further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors. to support his claims. He assured the court of his cooperation with the trial and sought anticipatory bail.

ISSUES

1. Whether the charge sheet was filed based on fair and transparent investigation, as required by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the applicant’s actions fell within the purview of the offense under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in the present case.

ARGUMENTS

• Accused’s Arguments

The applicant argues that the charge sheet lacks any substantial evidence against him. He contends that the investigation conducted by the police was not fair, transparent, and judicious, as required by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The accused relies on the judgment in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors. to support his contention that a fair investigation is a fundamental right and that a tainted and biased investigation can lead to an invalid charge sheet.

He points out that the lower court took cognizance without conducting a proper investigation. The applicant further argues that no evidence supports his involvement in the alleged intimidation or insult of the informant in public view. Consequently, the applicant claims that his implication under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act is baseless.

The applicant further asserts that he had no role in the intimidation or public humiliation of the informant based on his caste. He denies using derogatory slurs and threatening to kill the journalist. He submits that the charge sheet was filed without any valid basis against him and that he is willing to cooperate with the trial proceedings. Therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail to avoid any potential arrest.

• Prosecution’s Arguments

The prosecution argues that the charge sheet is supported by statements recorded from witnesses, which substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution emphasizes that the incident occurred during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic when the informant had sought police help to disperse a crowd to prevent the spread of infection. The accused and his co-accused allegedly misbehaved with the people of the locality, and the intimidation was aimed at the informant based on his caste.

The prosecution contends that the witness statements provide sufficient evidence to establish the allegations against the accused, justifying the charge sheet and the subsequent criminal proceedings. Therefore, the prosecution opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused.

JUDGMENT

• The court began its analysis by considering the importance of a fair investigation as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It observed that a tainted and biased investigation could lead to an invalid charge sheet, which would not stand in accordance with the law. The court reiterates the sacrosanct nature of the right to liberty under Article 21 and the principle of equal protection of law under Article 14. It highlights the presumption of innocence that prevails until an accused is convicted under specific sections of the Cr.P.C.

• The court further observes that a charge sheet is a report prepared by the investigating officer or law enforcement agencies to substantiate criminal accusations in a court of law. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) mandates the filing of this report with the magistrate, indicating the commencement of criminal proceedings and the end of the investigation.

• After a detailed examination of the legal provisions regarding investigation and submission of the charge sheet, the court laid down guidelines for granting anticipatory bail after the submission of a charge sheet. It categorized cases into those where anticipatory bail can be granted and those where it cannot be granted.

• The court identified “appropriate cases” where anticipatory bail can be granted after the submission of a charge sheet. These include instances where the F.I.R/complaint does not disclose essential ingredients of the alleged offenses, where there is a civil remedy and resort has been made to a criminal remedy, or where the allegations in the F.I.R/complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable.

• The court also specified cases where anticipatory bail cannot be granted after the submission of a charge sheet. These include instances where the charge sheet is supported by material without contradiction and where the accused is habitual in criminality or has violated bail conditions.

• Applying these guidelines to the present case, the court examined the statements recorded by the investigating officer and concluded that the incident in dispute was proved. Therefore, it rejected the anticipatory bail application, as the allegations of intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of the scheduled caste were fully established based on witness statements.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the case of Shivan vs. State of U.P. deals with an application for anticipatory bail in the context of offenses under the SC/ST Act and sections of the IPC. The court emphasizes the importance of fair investigations as a fundamental right and lays down comprehensive guidelines for granting or rejecting anticipatory bail applications after the submission of a charge sheet. Ultimately, the court denies the anticipatory bail application after finding sufficient evidence to support the charges against the accused based on witness statements and the circumstances of the case. This judgment establishes significant precedents for future cases involving anticipatory bail applications and reinforces the court’s commitment to ensuring fair trials and safeguarding the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

https://www.livelaw.in

https://www.sndlegalassociates.com

https://www.legalservicesindia.com

https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in

This Article is written by Zoya Hashmi a law student of Integral University Lucknow, 6^th Semester, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.