Allowed

Sonu Pandey @ Avinash Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2021BAIL/15002/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant charged under Sections 376, 511, and 308 IPC. The High Court acknowledged a property dispute but found no evidence of tampering. The applicant was granted bail subject to several stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions preventing tampering and ensuring appearance in court.

Sonu Pandey @ Avinash Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15002 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Pandey @ Avinash Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sonu Pandey @ Avinash Pandey, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 928 of 2020, under Sections 376, 511, 308 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

Although on 25.08.2021 learned counsel for the applicant had sought time to file rejoinder affidavit within a week but he has not filed any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the State. Today, he states that he does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit to the same.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first informant had illegally occupied the ancestral land of father of the applicant and applicant and his father asked him to vacate the said land after which some altercation took place between the two families, and thereafter, the present First Information Report has been lodged by levelling a false and concocted story. It is argued that the prosecutrix as per her own statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. is aged about 20 years although in the First Information Report her age has not been disclosed by the first informant. It is further argued that even as per the prosecution, the applicant made an attempt to commit rape upon prosecutrix. It is argued that CMO concerned has also opined the age of the prosecutrix as about 18 years which is mentioned in the certificate dated 04.12.2020.

¶9

It is further argued that the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and was found to have received seven injuries out of which except for the injury no.1 which was referred to an

¶10

expert, the other injuries were opined to be simple in nature. Subsequently, the expert examined her injury and has opined the same to be simple in nature. It is argued that the prosecutrix has although named the applicant and has even stated of assault on her but the same is false and with malafide intentions because of a dispute with regards to property.

¶11

Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant was previously involved in a case in which he has been granted bail by this Court, para 15 and annexure 7 being the order of granting bail to the applicant has been placed before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 05.12.2020.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix and has been assigned the role.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that there is some dispute with regards to the property. The injuries received by the prosecutrix have been opined to be simple in nature. The prosecutrix has stated her age to be 20 years in the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and 161 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Sonu Pandey @ Avinash Pandey , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of

¶19

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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶21

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 14.12.2021 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Sonu Pandey @ Avinash Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Pandey @ Avinash 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

Smt. Alka Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Jain Vs State of U.P.

Shivam @ Tempo @ Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Lav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others