Satyam Pandey Alias Ashutosh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:711

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3076 of 2023

Applicant :- Satyam Pandey Alias Ashutosh Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

It is informed by learned AGA that he has procured complete instructions in the matter.

¶7

Heard Shri Jaikaran, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants - Satyam Pandey Alias Ashutosh Pandey in Case Crime No. 113 of 2023, under Sections 457, 411, 380 I.P.C, Police Station Inhauna, District Amethi, with the prayer to grant him anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

During the course of deliberation it is surfaced that the investigation of case is in progress and the charge sheet has still not been filed and all the offences charged so far against the applicant are punishable with upto 7 years of imprisonment.

¶10

It is next submitted that the applicant is having apprehension that the applicant may be arrested without there being any sufficient material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and thus the protection from arrest be granted to the applicant and anticipatory bail application be allowed.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that applicant is accused of committing heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled for any protection.

¶12

The Hon'ble Supreme Curt in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2010)10 SCC 773 had held as under:-

¶13

"3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a

¶14

part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the Courts below. The guidelines are as under:

¶15

"Categories/Types of Offences

¶16

A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

¶17

B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

¶18

C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

¶19

D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts. Requisite Conditions 1) Not arrested during investigation. 2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called. (No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615)

¶20

CATEGORY A After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer. b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued. c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

¶21

d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing. e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided. CATEGORY B/D On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits."

¶22

CATEGORY C

¶23

Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.

¶24

4. Needless to say that the category A deals with both police cases and complaint cases.

¶25

5. The trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications. The caveat which has been put by learned ASG is that where the accused have not cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officers, nor answered summons when the Court feels that judicial custody of the accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with.

¶26

6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr. Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."

¶27

Thus without entering into merits and demerits of the case the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Satyam Pandey Alias Ashutosh Pandey is disposed of in terms that the applicant may move an appropriate bail application u/s 437/439 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for releasing him on bail and if such an application is moved within 15 days from today the trial court shall pass appropriate order in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill (supra).

¶28

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 Muk

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyam Pandey Alias Ashutosh Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Pandey Alias Ashutosh Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basheer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

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

Guddu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Balwant Singh Rautela Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Deshraj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.