Allahabad High Court | Steps must be taken to break unholy nexus between criminal politicians and bureaucrats; Bail denied to BSP MP

Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. rejected a bail application which was filed by the accused-applicant in FIR registered against him and another co-accused under Sections 120-B, 167, 195-A, 218, 306, 504 and 506 Penal Code, 1860.

The accused-applicant, BSP MP, elected from Ghosi Lok Sabha Constituency of Uttar Pradesh in 2019 general elections of Lok Sabha. He to his credit so far has 23 criminal cases, which include cases of kidnapping, murder, rape and other heinous offences. The current case was registered against the accused-applicant on a complaint by the victim, who later on attempted to commit suicide along with her friend within the precincts of the Supreme Court India on 16-08-2021 and they were admitted in very serious and critical conditions. They had gone live on Facebook making serious allegations against the accused-applicant and co-accused. Statements made by two victims live on Facebook have been treated as dying declarations. It was alleged that the co-accused an Ex IPS-officer was manufacturing false documents/evidence against the victim and her friend to favour present accused-applicant on monetary consideration.

Director General of Police constituted a Two Members Committee which submitted its report based on which a written complaint was given by Sub Inspector which is the basis of the FIR in question registered against the accused-applicant and co-accused.

The Court pointed out the unfortunate irony of the largest democracy of the world that as many as 43 percent of the Member of Lok Sabha who got elected in 2019 general elections are having criminal cases including cases related to heinous offences pending against them.

The Court further reiterated what the Supreme Court observed in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 224 where it had taken note of 244th Law Commission report in which it was said that 30 per cent or 152 sitting M.P.s were having criminal cases pending against them, of which about half i.e. 76 were having serious criminal cases. This phenomenon has increased with every general election. The Supreme Court has said that this leads to a very undesirous and embarrassing situation of law breakers becoming law makers and moving around police protection. The Supreme Court in the said case has directed the Election Commission of India to take appropriate measures to curb criminalization in politics but unfortunately collective will of the Parliament has not moved in the said direction to protect the Indian Democracy going in the hands of criminals, thugs and law breakers.

No one can dispute that the present-day politics is caught in crime, identity, patronage, muscle and money network. Nexus between crime and politics is serious threat to democratic values and governance based on rule of law.

Read more…

The Court further opined that it is responsibility of the Parliament to show its collective will to restrain the criminals from entering the politics, Parliament or legislature to save democracy and the country governed on democratic principles and rule of law and Parliament and Election Commission of India are required to take effective measures to wean away criminals from politics and break unholy nexus between criminal politicians and bureaucrats.

The Court held that looking at the heinousness of offence, might of the accused, evidence available on record, impact on society, possibility of accused tampering with the evidence and influencing/ winning over the witnesses by using his muscle and money power does not find that there is a ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. The application for bail was rejected.

[Atul Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 446, decided on 07-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Kaustubh Singh, Advocate, Counsel for the Applicant;

G.A., Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Party.


*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

The Supreme Court Collegium stated that every individual is entitled to maintain their own dignity and individuality, based on sexual orientation. Senior Advocate Kirpal’s openness about his orientation goes to his credit and rejecting his candidature on this ground would be contrary to the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

We Recommend

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.