Allowed

Aashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2023BAIL/18220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Aashish Kumar Pandey, alleging false implication. The Court held that criminal antecedents alone do not justify bail denial absent evidence of tampering or witness intimidation. Bail was granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, appearing for trial, and maintaining peace.

Aashish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120076

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18220 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aashish Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jainendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Pandey,Nikil Pathak,Pramod Kumar Tripathi,Shiv Narayan Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

2A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The first information report has been lodged with the allegation that the accused persons have assaulted with stick and fire arm. One Vijay Kumar Tiwari has suffered fire arm injury in the neck and the vocal card has been damaged. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused, although the informant has not disclosed the name of the applicant in the first information report. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence linking the applicant with the alleged crime neither any weapon has been recovered from the applicant. The co-accused Virendra Kumar Pandey, Ayodhya Prasad @ Ayodhya Prasad Pandey, Vyasmuni Pandey and Jogesh Kumar Pandey have already enlarged on bail by this Court by orders dated 25.5.2023, 18.5.2023, 17.5.2023 and 11.5.2023 respectively. The applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 10 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 9.3.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Sri Nikhil Pathak, learned counsel for the informant submits that the applicant has criminal history and there is apprehension to that the applicant would disturb the peace and tranquility of the informant and his family members.

¶11

4A. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will not disturb the peace and tranquility of the informant and his family members.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶13

5A. Learned AGA has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the Applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:

¶14

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶15

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶16

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶17

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another , 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶18

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or

¶19

witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶21

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant Ashish Kumar Pandey involved in Case Crime No.42 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Mohabbatpur Painsa, District Kaushambi 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 the following conditions:-

¶24

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶25

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶27

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶28

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶29

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶31

vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶32

viii. The applicant shall maintain peace and tranquility and shall not disturb the peaceful living of the informant and his family members. The S.H.O. concerned is directed to maintain law and order situation in the area where the informant is residing.

¶33

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶34

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Bhaskar

¶35

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aashish Kumar 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

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Ramdular Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Yadav Vs State of U.P.