Allowed

Brijesh Kumar Panday v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 May 2022/5185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J. allowed a bail application filed by Brijesh Kumar Panday in a case involving abduction and kidnapping. Relying on Apex Court principles, the court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail pending trial, subject to specific conditions including furnishing a bond and ensuring presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court appearance and undertaking not to seek adjournments.

Brijesh Kumar Panday Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5185 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Panday Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, U/S 386, 364, 342, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Raebareli, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused person, Rajjan @ Raj Kumar Panday and Puroshattam Diwedi are said to have come to the house of first informant and abducted his son, Santosh Kumar, in a Bolaro No. UP 33 AU 0604. The applicant is said to have met the main co-accused person, Rajjan @ Raj Kumar Panday and Puroshattam Diwedi on the way and is said to have helped them in getting the victim seated again in the said Bolaro. There is an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- stated to have been transferred by the victim in the account of Rajjan @ Raj Kumar Panday. Despite the transfer of the said amount, the applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have demanded further ransom from the informant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has next submitted that there is no role assigned to the applicant pertaining to the abduction and no amount, whatsoever, has been transferred to the account of the applicant. It is also argued that applicant has been wrongly implicated owing to his acquaintance with co-accused person, Puroshattam Diwedi. The case of the applicant is distinguishable to that of main accused persons, Rajjan @ Raj Kumar Panday and Puroshattam Diwedi. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.2.2022. In case, the

¶9

applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Brijesh Kumar Panday, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) 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 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 IPC.

¶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., 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.5.2022 Shalini

¶20

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.26 12:37:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijesh Kumar Panday v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Panday v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhunnu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Ors.

Km.Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohit Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Vishnu Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P. of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amish and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Altab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.