Allowed

Chandrabhan Pandey @ Tar Babu Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021BAIL/34045/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application filed by an accused not named in the FIR. The court held that a case for bail is made out based on the principle of parity with a co-accused who was already granted bail by a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties on conditions to not tamper with evidence, cooperate with the trial, and abstain from criminal activities.

Chandrabhan Pandey @ Tar Babu Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34045 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Chandrabhan Pandey @ Tar Babu Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Dutta Mishra,Manjulesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 461 of 2019 under Sections 307, 394, 411 I.P.C. registered at P.S.Handiya, District- Allahabad.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant has not committed the alleged offence. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Name of the applicant surfaced in his own confessional statement before the police which is not admissible in evidence. Alleged recovery-memo is forged and concocted one. Applicant is physically disabled. Applicant has explained criminal history in paragraph nos. 3-7 of the Supplementary-Affidavit. Further submitted that co-accused, Jitendra Yadav @ Lalla has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53607 of 2019 on 3.12.2019 and case of the applicant is at par with the case of co-accused who has been granted bail and applicant claimed parity. Further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.06.2019.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the facts as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶12

particularly the fact that applicant is not named in the F.I.R., name of the applicant came into light in the confessional statement of applicant itself, without commenting upon merits of the case, a case for bail is made out on the ground of parity.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Chandrabhan Pandey @ Tar Babu Pandey involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶17

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶18

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 A. Mandhani

Chandrabhan Pandey @ Tar Babu Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Pandey @ Tar Babu 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

Shahid @ Puppy Vs State of U.P.

Markandey Vs State of U P

Reyaz Vs State of U.P.

Sharik @ Khachchar Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishore Vs State of U.P.