Allowed

Santosh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2020BAIL/42647/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to the applicant, Santosh Kumar Pandey, challenging his remand in a case under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, and 506 IPC. The court noted the applicant was not named in the FIR and decided without adjudicating the merits of the case while imposing strict conditions for future appearances.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant ordered to release on personal bond with two sureties on furnishing of strict conditions for appearance and conduct.

Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42647 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 0233 of 2017, registered on 10.08.2017, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Gola, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No. 5, Gorakhpur on 17.10.2020.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 29.09.2020 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The co-accused has been granted on bail by this Court on 16.09.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35874 of 2019. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. The matter relates to sale transaction between two private parties.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the submissions from the record or upon instructions.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Santosh Kumar Pandey be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0233 of 2017, registered on 10.08.2017, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Gola, District Gorakhpur, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(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 as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 7.12.2020 Dhananjai

Santosh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avanish Singh Urf Mintu Vs State of U.P.

Lavkush Patel Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Devesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Doctor and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepshikha and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another