Allowed

Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2023ABAIL/11545/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to two applicants in a criminal case involving kidnapping and extortion. Based on settled principles regarding the nature of the offence and the applicants' cooperation with the investigation, the court held it was a fit case to grant bail until the police report is filed.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each.

Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey and Another Vs State… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206696

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11545 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Sen Singh,Jay Prakash Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey and Omprakash Mishra seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.384 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 347, 364, 448, 457, 380, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution story is quite unnatural and improbable. No injury has been caused to the informant or any member of his family in this case. It is also submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name came into light during investigation. In fact no money transaction took place during the course of alleged incident and as a matter of fact the victim of this case had already borrowed some money from the present applicant and with the motive of nonpayment of the said money, present F.I.R. has been lodged. Criminal history of the applicant has been sufficiently explained. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

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

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

¶11

counsel for the parties.

¶12

In this matter from the perusal of the record it reveals that the informant, who is a Taxi Driver, was hired by some unknown person, who took him with them and he was taken to several places in another vehicle and subsequently his wife and daughter were also kidnapped by them and they threatened them to deliver some money and also obtained signatures of the informant upon blank papers and cheques and meanwhile a robbery was also committed in the house of the informant. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that applicants are cooperating with the investigation so far. Criminal history of the applicants has been sufficiently explained.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts

¶16

and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶17

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶20

The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶23

The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of applicants in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 30.10.2023

¶26

safi

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

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

Mohammad Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chetan Pandey (Minor) Vs State of U.P.

Hemendra @ Harvindra Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Govind Prasad Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Inam Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another