2001 Protest Case | Allahabad High Court Stays 3-Month Jail Term Awarded To AAP MP Sanjay Singh

“Prima facie, the ingredients of sections 143 and 341 I.P.C. are missing and the judgments of both the Court below are perverse,” a bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed as it stayed his sentence subject to him furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The Court also added that even though Singh is not in confinement, the High Court may suspend the sentence while exercising twin jurisdiction given in section 397(1) CrPC.

It may be noted that Singh had moved the HC with a revision plea seeking his acquittal in the 2001 case and praying to suspend the sentence awarded to him in January 2023 by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special MP/MLA Court, Sultanpur, after convicting him under sections 143, 341, 504, 506 IPC and 32/34 Police Act.

The judgment and order of conviction was affirmed in Criminal Appeal in August 2024 by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (MP/MLA) Court, Sultanpur.

The case relates to an incident of June 2001. A demonstration was held in Sultanpur, where former SP MLA Anoop Sanda, Sanjay Singh, and others protested against the state's poor power supply.

A case was lodged against them, and after the trial, six were convicted in January last year and awarded three months imprisonment.

Before the court, senior counsel SC Mishra, appearing for Singh, submitted that the prosecution witnesses' testimony falsified the prosecution case. He referred to the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' testimony.

He contended that PW1 and PW2 S.I. Ashok Kumar Singh (the complainant) had not mentioned the revisionist's name during their cross-examinations. In fact, it was submitted that PW1 did not state that Singh was part of the mob that allegedly obstructed the road, and PW2 also did not identify Singh as being involved in hindering the smooth traffic flow on the day of the incident. Top of Form

Given this, it was argued that the trial Court had no evidence showing that the alleged gathering incited violence or public disorder at the scene of the alleged incident.

Lastly, it was also argued that the execution of the sentence may be stayed given Section 397(1) CrPC, which enables the revisional Court to exercise twin jurisdiction vested in it in cases where the accused is in confinement and not in confinement.

He further submitted that despite Singh not being confined in jail, the HC has the jurisdiction to stay the execution of his sentence without requiring him to surrender before the court below.

Against this backdrop, admitting the revision, the Court allowed his plea for a stay of sentence and directed for the listing of the matter for hearing in due course.

“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,” the Court's order reads.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Senior Counsel SC Mishra assisted by Advocates Anuj Pandey and Nadeem Murtaza

Counsel for Opposite Party: GA assisted by Additional Government Advocate Alok Tiwari

Case title – Sanjay Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another