Om Prakash Pandey @ Gatey Pandey Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10034

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1219 of 2024

Applicant :- Om Prakash Pandey @ Gatey Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Bhushan Pandey,Shailendra Dwivedi

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and charge sheet in this case has also been submitted.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Om Prakash Pandey @ Gatey Pandey for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 278 of 2023, under Section 115 I.P.C. Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur, during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The allegations against the applicant are to the tune, as are evident from the recovery/arresting memo that the applicant with other co-accused persons was hatching a conspiracy to commit the murder of 'village pradhan.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged under Section 115 I.P.C. and the charge sheet has also been filed under the same penal sections. However, by any stretch of imagination the said penal section may not be invoked against the applicant.

¶13

Elaborating further, it is submitted that to invoke Section 115 of the I.P.C. against the applicant, the abetment of the magnitude, as defined under Section 107 of the I.P.C. is required and apart from the confessional statement of the applicant and other co-accused persons, there is no other evidence which may connect the applicant with the alleged crime. Moreover, there is no circumstance from which the intention of the applicant to commit murder of village pradhan

¶14

may be gathered and with regard to the same set of facts another case under relevant penal sections of the Arms Act has been instituted against the applicant wherein the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶15

It is further submitted that the alleged offences against the applicant are triable by Magistrate. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 25.08.2023 and charge sheet in this case has already been filed. Having regard to the pendency before the trial court, the trial is not going to conclude in near future and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶16

It is further submitted that criminal history of 13 cases have been alleged against the applicant, however, the applicant has been granted bail in 10 cases and the bail orders with regard to these cases have been placed on record. However, with regard to one case pertaining to Section 3/5/25 of Arms Act applicant has been granted bail and the other two cases were pertaining to Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. and Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and no information with regard to the same could be procured by the 'pairokar' of the applicant, as the applicant is detained in prison.

¶17

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Considering the fact that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 25.08.2023 as also the fact that simplicitor charges under Section 115 I.P.C. has been alleged against the applicant and the defence of the applicant that simplicitor allegation of abetment without there being any substantive offences for which abetment is being rendered may not be punishable and also keeping in view the period of detention already undergone by the applicant in this case, a case of bail is made out in favour of the applicant, moreover, when his long criminal history has been explained and in the considered opinion of this Court, only on the basis of criminal history, the facility of bail may not be denied to the applicant, who is also carrying a presumption of innocence if there is no sufficient or adequate material collected in support of the allegations during the course of investigation.

¶19

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing

¶20

any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶21

Let the accused/applicant- Om Prakash Pandey @ Gatey Pandey involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 2.2.2024 Praveen

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash Pandey @ Gatey Pandey v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Pandey @ Gatey Pandey v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shoeb Iqbal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Rahul Singh @ Rahul Somvanshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Confidential Lko. and Another

Izhar Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others