Allowed

Sarvesh Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2022/13927/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by three applicants challenging the rejection of their bail by the Sessions Judge. The court observed that the applicants have no prior criminal history, injuries were non-fatal, and the case prima facie made out. The court applied the legal parameters laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions and a per

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all applicants in Crime No. 467 of 2020 subject to personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties on terms specified.

Sarvesh Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13927 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh Pandey And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Akhilendra Kumar Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA is taken on record. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Sarvesh Pandey, Abhishek Pandey and Santosh Tiwari in Case Crime No. 467 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 427, 504, 506 of the I.P.C., Police Station - Maharaj Ganj, District - Faizabad/Ayodhya after rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Faizabad/Ayodhya vide order dated 08.11.2021.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that at the most, a case under Section 323 of the IPC is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 308 of the IPC is made out. It is further submitted that, general role of assault has been levelled against the applicants. As per medical report of injured, Abhinav Tiwari, dated 31.10.2020, all the injuries are related to reddish abraded contusions and there is no fatal injuries not there is any fracture. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants. Offence is punishable up to seven years of imprisonment. It is further submitted that interim anticipatory bail of the applicant has been granted by this Court on 01.12.2021. It is further submitted that the

¶8

applicant is ready to participate in the investigation.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶10

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98 , ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

In case of arrest, the applicant, Sarvesh Pandey, Abhishek Pandey and Santosh Tiwari is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;

¶15

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ;

¶16

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶17

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶19

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicants, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶20

With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 8.9.2022 Anurag, APS

¶22

Digitally signed by ANURAG SINGH Date: 2022.09.13 10:52:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarvesh Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Abubakar and 8 Others vs State of U.P.

Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithlesh Dixit and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ishtiyaq @ Ishtiyaq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munna Lal Gupta and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gaya Baksh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saket Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.