Allowed

Uma Shanker Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022ABAIL/6468/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench order grants anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving alleged culpable homicide. The court found that the accused had no criminal antecedents and no credible evidence of direct role in causing injury, concluding that liberty was justified subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties on specified conditions.

Uma Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6468 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Uma Shanker Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Mishra,Ayush Mishra,Vinod Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.14/1991, under Sections 34/307 I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The first information report of this case has been lodged on 06.01.1991 against the applicant and co-accused Narendra Pratap, wherein, the role of exhortation was attributed to applicant. After thorough investigation, the involvement of applicant was not found and thus, the final report was submitted in respect of applicant and charge-sheet has been filed only against co-accused Narendra Pratap. During pendency of that case, applicant was summoned under Section 319 CrPC by order dated 20.02.1992. The applicant has challenged the said summoning order before this Court by filling Criminal Revision No.357/1992, wherein, applicant was granted interim relief, but the said Criminal Revision came to be dismissed by order dated 11.07.2019 and thereafter, applicant has applied for anticipatory bail before

¶8

Court below, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2022. Referring to facts of the matter, it is submitted that there is no credible evidence against applicant. The role of causing injury to injured has not been assigned to applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Uma Shanker Pandey in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory

¶14

bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶16

(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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 Neeraj

¶20

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.08.30 17:52:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Uma Shanker Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Shanker 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramvilas Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P

Tabassum (Smt.) and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed Khan Vs State of U.P.

Madhu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alok Parihar Vs State of U.P. and Another