Allowed

Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024/2710/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench allowed a bail application filed by Jai Prakash Pandey in a cheating case. The court noted his confined role and lack of criminal antecedents as grounds for release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, absconding, and committing crimes.

Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23529

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2710 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Srivastava,Subham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Diwakar Pratap Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary of the case.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as Shri Diwakar Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the informant/complainant, and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Jai Prakash Pandey alias Bindu Pandey for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 705/ 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R., however, during the course of investigation and no specific role has been assigned to him except of receiving some money.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that there is no allegation that applicant was part and parcel of any criminal conspiracy to defraud the informant. He is in jail in this case since 08.01.2024 and is not having any criminal antecedents. He undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. It is further submitted that identically placed two co-accused persons, namely, Hariram Yadav and Akash Kumar Gupta have been enlarged on bail by this court vide orders passed in criminal misc. bail application nos. 2897 of 2024 and 2896 of 2024 respectively.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Diwakar Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the informant-complainant, on the other hand, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to

¶12

be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the record and considering the fact that role of the applicant has been confined only of receiving some money along with other co-accused persons and his connivance has not been shown in the process of defrauding the informant and also keeping in view the period of detention already undergone by the applicant in the instant case and also that identically placed co-accused- Hariram Verma and Akash Kumar Gupta have been granted bail, a case of bail is made out in favour of the applicant. Applicant is in jail in this case since 08.01.2024 without having any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶14

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and 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 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.

¶15

Let the accused/applicant- Jai Prakash Pandey alias Bindu 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment and would remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence would be required.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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 of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.3.2024MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Shahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

Paramjeet Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another