Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Pratapgarh Group Clash Case Involving Firearms image for SC Judgment dated 11-12-2021 in the case of Laxman Prasad Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Other
| |

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Pratapgarh Group Clash Case Involving Firearms

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in Laxman Prasad Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, addressing bail cancellations and anticipatory bail rejections in a violent group clash that resulted in multiple injuries and a fatality. The case involved rival factions in Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh, who engaged in an armed confrontation over financial disputes, leading to multiple FIRs against both groups. The Supreme Court, while evaluating the seriousness of the allegations, set aside the bail granted to certain accused and denied anticipatory bail to others, emphasizing the need for judicial caution in granting bail in cases involving violent offenses.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from an altercation on May 8, 2020, in Marut Nagar, Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh, where two rival factions led by Laxman Prasad Pandey and Sarvesh Tiwari clashed, allegedly using firearms. The dispute originated over financial transactions, and both groups accused each other of unprovoked attacks.

Two separate FIRs were filed:

  • FIR No. 406 of 2020: Filed by Laxman Prasad Pandey, alleging that the opposing group, led by Sarvesh Tiwari and others, opened indiscriminate fire, resulting in the death of his brother, Ram Prasad Pandey.
  • FIR No. 407 of 2020: Filed by Sarvesh Tiwari on May 12, 2020, accusing Laxman Prasad Pandey and his associates of attacking their group with firearms, causing serious injuries.

Several accused in both cases sought bail or anticipatory bail from the Allahabad High Court.

Proceedings in the High Court

The High Court granted bail to Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari, and Raj Kumar Maurya, who were accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020. Meanwhile, it denied anticipatory bail to Laxman Prasad Pandey, Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Subhash Saini, Pramod Pandey, Ratnakar Dwivedi, and Vikas Chandra Mishra, who were accused in FIR No. 407 of 2020.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/corruption-in-public-land-allotment-supreme-court-restores-criminal-proceedings-against-odisha-officials/

Challenging these orders, the complainants moved the Supreme Court to cancel the bail granted to the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020, while the accused in FIR No. 407 of 2020 sought anticipatory bail.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner’s (Laxman Prasad Pandey’s) Arguments:

  • The High Court failed to properly assess the gravity of the offense before granting bail to the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020.
  • The accused were involved in the indiscriminate use of firearms, resulting in a fatality.
  • The Single Judge of the High Court did not analyze the case properly and merely stated that the accused had been in jail for a certain period.

Respondent’s (Accused’s) Arguments:

  • The bail orders were passed after considering the evidence on record and the period of incarceration.
  • The accused in FIR No. 407 of 2020 (who were denied anticipatory bail) argued that the counter-complaint was filed as an afterthought.
  • One of the complainants in FIR No. 406 of 2020 had a criminal history, making their allegations less credible.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the bail orders and made the following key observations:

  • The High Court had granted bail to the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020 without recording proper satisfaction regarding the nature of the allegations.
  • The offense involved the indiscriminate use of firearms, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to others, making it a grave case where caution in granting bail was necessary.
  • The anticipatory bail plea in FIR No. 407 of 2020 was rightfully rejected as the investigation was still ongoing and required cooperation from the accused.
  • The High Court’s reasoning that the accused had been in jail for a certain period was insufficient justification for granting bail in a case of such seriousness.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

  • Bail of Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari, and Raj Kumar Maurya (accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020) was canceled. The Court directed their immediate custody.
  • Anticipatory bail for Laxman Prasad Pandey and others (accused in FIR No. 407 of 2020) was denied. The accused were instructed to surrender and apply for regular bail.
  • The Court emphasized that the observations in the judgment should not influence the trial court’s decision-making in future proceedings.

Key Takeaways

  • Judicial Caution in Bail Matters: Courts must provide detailed reasoning when granting bail, especially in serious cases involving firearms.
  • Gravity of Offense Overrules Jail Time Considerations: The period of incarceration alone is not a sufficient reason for granting bail in cases of violent crime.
  • Counter-FIRs Need Thorough Examination: Courts should carefully scrutinize FIRs filed after a delay to determine if they were made in retaliation.
  • Anticipatory Bail is Not a Right: In cases involving serious allegations, the Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not an automatic right.

This ruling serves as a critical precedent for bail jurisprudence in cases involving violent crimes, ensuring that judicial discretion is exercised with due caution.


Petitioner Name: Laxman Prasad Pandey.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-12-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: laxman-prasad-pandey-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-12-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts