Allahabad High Court
BABALU @ VIMAL KISHORE PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- TEJ PRATAP TIWARI
Holding
The court granted the appellant liberty to file a bail application within three weeks and ordered a stay on coercive action, thereby disposing of the appeal.
Summary
The appellant Babalu @ Vimal Kishore Pandey filed a criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking to set aside the cognizance and summons order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge. The appellant did not wish to contest the merits of the case but requested liberty to file a bail application before the trial court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The State’s Additional Government Advocate did not oppose this request. The High Court, applying the Supreme Court’s bail jurisprudence, granted the appellant permission to file a bail application within three weeks and directed that no coercive action be taken against him during that period. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of without addressing the substantive issues.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court can grant liberty to the accused to file a bail application and stay coercive action pending such application under the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 115(2), 117(2) B.N.S., 14A(1), 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(Va), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- summons order
- coercive action
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 229 of 2026
Babalu @ Vimal Kishore Pandey
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Prasad, Rakesh Prasad, Sarvesh
Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned A.G.A. for the
State of U.P. and perused the records.
2. The instant criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the
appellant to set aside the impugned cognizance and summoning order
dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) P.A. Act in
Special Trial No. 158 of 2025 (State vs. Babalu @ Vimal Kishore
Pandey), under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2) B.N.S. and Section
3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(Va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Kurawali, Disrict Mainpuri.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he
does not wish to press the appeal on merits; rather, he seeks liberty to file
an appropriate application before the concerned trial court and a direction
to the learned trial court to decide the bail application of the appellant in
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar
Antil vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not oppose the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant.
5. In light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding
the grant of bail to an accused, the appellant is granted liberty to file a bail
application before the concerned trial court within three weeks from
today, along with a certified copy of this order. If such an application is
CRLA No. 229 of 2026
2
filed within the said period, the concerned trial court shall pass an order
on the same in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks, or till
the filing of the bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action
shall be taken against the appellant in the aforesaid case.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the present criminal appeal is
disposed of.
(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)
May 7, 2026
Manoj
Digitally signed by :-
MANOJ KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…