Allowed

Akriti @ Sachin Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2022BAIL/27306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the applicant under the U.P. Gangsters Act during pendency of trial, imposing strict conditions regarding witness tampering, court appearances, and consequences of default including proceedings under IPC and Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties under condition of strict compliance with court attendance and non-interference terms.

Akriti @ Sachin Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27306 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akriti @ Sachin Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Akriti @ Sachin Pandey, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 230 of 2018, G.T. No. 29 of 2019, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Ahraula, DistrictAzamgarh, pendency of trial.

¶7

Apart from five cases shown in the gang chart the applicant has criminal history of five more cases wherein he is on bail. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. The applicant is not a member of any gang. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.08.2018. In case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶12

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.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.7.2022 Rohit

¶19

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.07.08 13:14:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akriti @ Sachin Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akriti @ Sachin 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep @ Bakra Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Smt Reetu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Vs State of U.P.

Sahid Hasimi Vs State of U.P.

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P.