Allowed

Neeraj Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2020BAIL/29982/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the bail application of the applicant, Neeraj Pandey, accused in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court imposed specific conditions, including attendance for framing of charges and probation for misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions of attendance and undertaking not to seek adjournments.

Neeraj Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29982 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Singh,Manu Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manu Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant- Neeraj Pandey, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0010 of 2020, under Sections 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kadadham, District Kaushambi, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

It is contended by counsel for the applicant that gang chart reveals two criminal cases registered against the applicant and in both the said cases, he is on bail. Copy of the bail orders have been brought on record as Annexure 4 to the affidavit to the bail application and S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit. However, in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit two more criminal cases have been disclosed, in one of them final report has been submitted while another was registered as N.C.R. No.133 of 2018. Apart from this, there is no other criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.7.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. while opposing bail of the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant - Neeraj Pandey be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0010 of 2020, under Sections 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kadadham, District Kaushambi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶15

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

(vi) The computer generated copy of this order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶17

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of this computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

(viii) In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.12.2020 KA

¶21

Digitally signed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal Date: 2020.12.08 17:09:05 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonpal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Jain Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwandas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km.Bandana and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another