The Allahabad High Court has granted permission to the state government to retract a criminal case filed in 2015 under the Railways Act against Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad, a Cabinet Minister from Uttar Pradesh.

The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh issued this directive in response to a Criminal revision plea lodged by the State Government, contesting the decision made by the Additional CJM, Gorakhpur in September of this year. The CJM had dismissed the petition filed by the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking the withdrawal of prosecution against Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad.

Additionally, the Court granted approval for Dr. Nishad's separate plea filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which contested the decision of the Additional CJM. In this case, Dr. Nishad faced charges under Section 174 of the Railways Act, specifically related to obstructing the operation of trains.

Allegations suggested that while serving as the Chairman of Nishad Ekta Parishad, he participated in a demonstration with several individuals from the Nishad community, causing disruption to railway traffic by staging a protest on the railway tracks. Section 321 of the CrPC allows the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor to apply for the withdrawal from prosecution with the Court's consent.

While the case was ongoing, the State of Uttar Pradesh made a decision to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court granted permission for the prosecution's withdrawal through an order issued in August this year. Following this decision, a request under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution. However, the trial Court rejected this application in September of this year, citing that the case was in the final hearing stage, thus denying the withdrawal of the prosecution.

In its ruling, the Court highlighted a crucial point that the origin of the initiative from the government itself wouldn't invalidate an application for the withdrawal of prosecution. The Court emphasized the necessity for an inquiry into the reasons behind the withdrawal to ascertain that the Public Prosecutor was convinced about the imperative need for withdrawal based on substantial and pertinent grounds. This scrutiny aimed to ensure that the withdrawal of prosecution was justified by valid and substantial reasons.

Given this context, the Court highlighted that the High Court had already granted permission to apply under Section 321 of the CrPC, citing the precedent set in Ashwani Upadhyay’s case. Examining the nature of the accusations and the case's facts, it was established that a strong case existed for withdrawing the ongoing prosecution.

The Court also observed that the Public Prosecutor had independently assessed the situation, exercising discretion in alignment with the law. Therefore, based on established legal principles and the specific circumstances of this case, the Additional CJM's order was deemed to exhibit clear and fundamental errors and bias.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Additional CJM's decision and approved the application submitted by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the CrPC, allowing for the withdrawal of the prosecution.

Case Title - State of U.P. vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad and a connected case