Manoj Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022BAIL/12307/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail order dated 13.4.2022 by Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J. in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 12307 of 2022; applicant Manoj Pandey; Case Crime No. 33 of 2022, S. 3(1) U.P. Gangsters Act, P.S. Shyamdeurwa, District Maharajganj; gang chart; bail granted on personal bond and two sureties; reliance on Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 22; Article 21; reformative theory; custody since 16.11.2021; related cases under Ss. 323, 308 IPC and S. 3/25 Arms Act.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Manoj Pandey on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (co-operation in trial, no tampering with witnesses, no illegal activities); breach permitting cancellation of bail by the court below. ¶¶12

Manoj Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Manoj Pandey, involved in Case Crime No. 33 of 2022 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, should be enlarged on bail.

¶¶7

Court's answer

Having heard both sides, and considering the seriousness of the charge, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, and the dictum in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found it to be a case of bail.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions of attending and co-operating in the trial, not tampering with witnesses, and not indulging in illegal activities; identity, status and residential proof of sureties to be verified by the court concerned, and breach of conditions entitles the court below to cancel the bail.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

Observations, if any, made in the order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, S. 3(1) — applicant Manoj Pandey involved in Case Crime No. 33 of 2022, P.S. Shyamdeurwa, District Maharajganj; two gang-chart cases with bail already granted in both; final report dated 20.4.2018 in Case Crime No. 63 of 2018 (Ss. 323, 308 IPC) after involvement not found; one further case of 2022 under S. 3/25 Arms Act noted by the A.G.A.; in custody since 16.11.2021. Considering seriousness of charge, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction, reformative theory and Article 21 mandate, and relying on Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 22, and without expressing opinion on merits, the Court held it a case of bail and granted bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; observations confined to disposal of the bail application.

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12307 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

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

¶6

The accused- applicant, Manoj Pandey is involved in Case Crime No.33 of 2022, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Shyamdeurwa, District- Maharajganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the gang chart two cases are shown pending against him and in both the cases he is on bail. Copy of the bail orders are appended to the paper book. It is also submitted that there was criminal history of one more case as Case Crime No.63 of 2018 under Section 323, 308 IPC against him and during investigation his involvement was not found in that case. Hence, the final report was submitted on 20.4.2018 regarding which copy of case diary has been appended at page 35 of the paper book. He is languishing in jail since 16.11.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that the accused is having criminal history of total 4 cases out of which two cases are mentioned in the gang chart in which the accused is admitted to be on bail, regarding case crime no.63 of 2018, part of case diary is on record that the present accused is not involved in that case and one more case bearing case crime no.28 of 2022 under Section 3/25 Arms Act is also said to be pending against the accused.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused applicant has shown his ignorance regarding the case of Arms Act. On a query being made to learned counsel for the applicant, he replied that as the case is of year 2022, the same could not be included in the gang chart.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both the

¶11

parties, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Manoj Pandey , who is involved in 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 subject to following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant will attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge himself in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 13.4.2022 Deepika

¶20

Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.04.19 12:45:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Jangid Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mazid Khan Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs state of u.p. and 3 Others

Mustaqeem Vs State of U.P.