Allowed

Amit Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023BAIL/8764/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to Amit Kumar Pandey accused of misappropriating public money under Section 409 IPC, citing jail overcrowding, uncertainty in the investigation, and the mandate of Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to stringent conditions regarding tampering with evidence, attendance in court, and procedural compliance.

Amit Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8764 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Krishna Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Applicant is stated to be cashier of the bank. There is allegation against him that he misappropriated the public money. First information report has been lodged by the Manager of the Bank. During investigation Manager has also been implicated.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated only to shift the blame on him. Manager of the bank is also implicated as co-accused. Applicant is in jail since 21.12.2022.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶11

Let the applicant, Amit Kumar Pandey, involved in Case Crime No.442 of 2022, under Section 409 I.P.C, Police Station Sarai Aqil, District- Kaushambi 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

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

¶13

(ii) 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

¶14

with law.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 5.4.2023 SS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Asha Rani Vs State of U.P.

Prince Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Mahipal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Indrawati Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P.