Allowed

Hanuman Sewak Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022BAIL/20244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Hanuman Sewak Pandey under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The court noted prior bail grants and stayed proceedings in related cases, finding prima facie grounds for bail with specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and cooperation.

Hanuman Sewak Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20244 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Hanuman Sewak Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Raj Srivastava,Durgesh Dubey,Reema Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention), Act, Police Station- Gopiganj, District- Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi).

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that as per the gang-chart, only one case has been shown to be registered against the applicant, in which the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.3.2022 and in other Case Crime No. 690 of 2009, the applicant has been granted bail by the court below and in third Case Crime No. 356 of 2011, the applicant has also been granted bail by this Court.

¶9

Sofar as the Case Crime No. 104 of 2017 under Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, it is stated that proceedings have been stayed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 17086 of 2019.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 22.4.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he be released on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that in the case shown in the gang chart, the applicant has already been released on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court and the charge sheet has already been submitted coupled with the fact that the other three cases are old and stale of the year 2009, 2011 and 2017 respectively and even in the said two cases, applicant is on bail and in the third case of 2017, the proceedings have been stayed by this Court, I am of the view that prima facie a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicant- Hanuman Sewak Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶15

(2). 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.

¶16

(3). 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. is issued and the 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.

¶17

(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof

¶20

of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.12.2022 KU

¶24

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.12.16 16:44:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hanuman Sewak Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Sewak 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dheerendra @ Dheeraj @ Dheera and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Rajkumar Vs State of U.P.

M/S Maa Shakti Ceramics Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zaikam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another