NDLI: Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	FIR anticipatory bail Arms Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 and s.120B – Arms Act – s.27/30 – Two FIRs were filed, both pertained to the same incident – There was a clash of two groups by using firearms which resulted in indiscriminate firing from both sides – First FIR No.406 of 2020 (u/ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188, 120B IPC and s.27/30 of the Arms Act) was filed by the appellant alleging that he along with his brother and some other persons had gone to seek return of the money which he had given to a person of the another group – It is alleged that they were fired upon and as a result of the indiscriminate firing, appellant’s brother died and others were injured – Second FIR No.407 of 2020 (u/ss.147, 148, 149, 307 IPC) was filed by another group, however, they alleged that appellant and his group were the aggressors and they had fired upon them – The High Court granted bail to the accused persons in the first FIR and in the second FIR the accused persons i.e. appellant and others were denied anticipatory bail – On appeal, held: A perusal of the order in the proceedings relating to the first FIR in bail application indicates that the Single Judge of the High Court though has taken note of details of the incident and the contention of the parties, has not analyzed the same to record the satisfaction to enlarge the accused on bail – The conclusion recorded by the Single Judge of the High Court is almost verbatim similar to the portion which is extracted and disapproved by the Supreme Court in Mahipal’s case – The accused were enlarged on bail though the charges were grave, which included s.302 IPC and s.27/30 of the Arms Act – The fact that the said accused persons had spent 10, 7 and 4 months respectively in custody have weighed with the High Court which could not have been a mitigating factor when charges of such serious nature are to be tried – Further, one of the accused had seven cases registered against him and investigation is not yetcomplete in the second FIR – One person died due to firearm wound – So, release of the accused persons at this juncture not justified – As far as anticipatory bail is concerned, the appellant himself stated in the first FIR that accused persons caught hold of his brother’s licensed pistol, which would indicate that appellant and his group were also armed – So, it is too premature at this stage to arrive at any conclusion as to which group was the aggressor – The State indicated that one of the reasons for incomplete investigation was that one person was still undergoing treatment, that itself makes it clear that injuries were not of simple nature – The allegations, in the instant case were of serious nature which would require a detailed investigation and recovery of weapons in the course of investigation which is yet to be completed – Thus, it is not a fit case where the appellants need to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail – Also, the bail order granting bail to the accused in first FIR set aside and their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajjikuttira Somaiah Bopanna
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 874
Petitioner	Laxman Prasad Pandey
Respondent	The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
SCR	[2021] 9 S.C.R. 629
Judgement Date	2021-12-11
Case Number	1551

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sudam Charan Dash Vs. State of Orissa & Anr.

Satpal Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of Nct of Delhi

Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.c.t. of Delhi

Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal

Hari & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

State of Punjab Vs. Raninder Singh and Anr. Etc.

Mukhtar Zaidi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

R.k. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Assam and Ors.

Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sudam Charan Dash Vs. State of Orissa & Anr.

Satpal Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of Nct of Delhi

Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.c.t. of Delhi

Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal

Hari & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

State of Punjab Vs. Raninder Singh and Anr. Etc.

Mukhtar Zaidi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

R.k. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Assam and Ors.

Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.