Read Time: 06 minutes
In June 2001, former SP MLA Anoop Sanda, Sanjay Singh, and others protested in Sultanpur over poor power supply. In January 2023, six accused, including Singh, were convicted and sentenced to three months in prison by the trial court. On August 6, 2024, Singh's sentence was upheld by the appellate court.
The Allahabad High Court on August 22, 2024, stayed the 3-month jail term awarded to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in 2001 protest case. The court deemed the trial court's judgment as prima facie 'perverse.'
A bench led by Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar noted that the elements required under sections 143 and 341 IPC were absent and criticized the judgments of the courts below.
The stay is subject to Singh furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 to the trial court's satisfaction with an undertaking that he or his counsel shall appear in the court when his revision plea against conviction is listed for hearing.
In June 2001, former SP MLA Anoop Sanda, Sanjay Singh, and others protested in Sultanpur against the state's inadequate power supply. Following the trial, six accused, including Singh, were convicted in January 2023 and sentenced to three months in prison.
Singh moved the high court filing a revision plea seeking his acquittal in the case. He also sought suspension of the sentence imposed on him in January 2023 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special MP/MLA Court, Sultanpur, who had convicted him under sections 143, 341, 504, 506 IPC and 32/34 Police Act. This conviction was upheld by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.) in Sultanpur on August 6, 2024.
Senior counsel SC Mishra, representing Singh, argued that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies undermined the prosecution’s case. He highlighted inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements. He further claimed that in political vendetta, Singh had been falsely roped in a few other criminal cases.
The senior counsel submitted that neither of the two prosecution witnesses had mentioned Singh's name during cross-examinations. Specifically, Mithilesh Kumar Singh (PW1) did not claim that Singh was part of the group that supposedly blocked the road, and S.I. Ashok Kumar Singh (complainant) (PW2) did not identify Singh as being involved in disrupting traffic on the day of the incident.
Moreover, he argued that under Section 397(1) CrPC, the revisional court has the authority to stay the execution of the sentence regardless of whether the accused is currently imprisoned.
Considering the argument raised, the single judge bench opined that "prima facie, the ingredients of sections 143 and 341 IPC were missing and the judgments of both the court below were perverse".
Furthermore, court held that although Singh was not in confinement at present, the high court while exercising twin jurisdiction given in section 397(1) CrPC may suspend his sentence.
Accordingly, court ordered, "Till further orders of the Court, execution of the sentence awarded vide the judgment and order(s) under revision shall remain stayed subject to the revisionist furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court with an undertaking that he or his counsel shall appear in the Court when the revision is listed for hearing".
Case Title: Sanjay Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another
Please Login or Register
