Allowed

Pankaj Rathaur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021BAIL/39176/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 364-A, 467, 468, 420, 323, and 120-B IPC, the court observed the applicant was a paid driver falsely implicated and had cooperated in the investigation. The court granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and committing further crimes.

Pankaj Rathaur Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39176 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Rathaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Pankaj Rathaur , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 384 of 2021, under Sections - 364-A, 467, 468, 420, 323 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Gursahaiganj, District - Kannauj , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) against FIR lodged on 16.07.2021, the applicant is in confinement since 17.07.2021;

¶9

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶10

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶11

(iv) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He was only a paid driver of the vehicle that is alleged to have been used for the commission of offence. Even if the confessional statement of the applicant were to be read in entirety, it would be clear that the applicant had no knowledge or participation in the commission. Merely because he was present at the time of recovery of the person abducted may not result in the implication of the applicant in the occurrence. Thus, the case of the present applicant is different from the co-accused against whom main allegation of abduction is made;

¶12

(v) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or

¶13

delay the trial.

¶14

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 Abhilash

Pankaj Rathaur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Rathaur 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varun Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Salamatullah Vs Board of Revenue

Smt. Prema Devi Vs Court of S.D.O and 3 Others

Lokendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mansingh Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.