Allowed

Ayush Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024/3277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of a bail application, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the appellant under specific conditions, noting the trial court overlooked exculpatory evidence.

What did the court decide?

Earnest allowed application; impugned order dated 09.11.2023 set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Ayush Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:202

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3277 of 2023 Appellant :- Ayush Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application No.65/2023 arising out of Case Crime No.336/2023 under Sections 376D, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Cantt., District- Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that he was a friend of Raj Dwivedi as Raj Dwivedi and the victim were close friends and on the date of incident, he was informed by Raj Dwivedi that some quarrel was taken place with the victim then he went to mediate them, and thereafter, his name was falsely implicated. He further submitted that statement of hotel staff, namely Ganesh Pandey was recorded, in which, he categorically stated that Raj Dwivedi came to the hotel on 10.09.2023 at 1:30 noon and asked for one room and after proper entry, room no.103 was given to them and at 04:40 hours, they checked out and one boy was also with them and they started quarreling near the reception and then both the boys left the victim at reception and went away, as the girl was in intoxicated condition then she was asked for facilitating a rickshaw. He further submitted that the victim is a major lady and only with the intention to realize money from the appellant, he has been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 12.09.2023 and charge-sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of tampering of evidence but all these facts were not considered by the trial court while rejecting the bail application of appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled

¶9

to be released on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of appellant for bail and submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but he could not dispute the fact that hotel staff has categorically stated that Raj Dwivedi and victim visited the hotel and at the time of checking out, appellant was also present as the victim and her friends were quarreling.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, as in the hotel, victim and her friend Raj Dwivedi visited and thereafter, on call, appellant went to resolve their dispute, thereafter, F.I.R. of case in question was lodged and the trial court has failed to consider the statement of the hotel staff, namely Ganesh Pandey, therefore, it appears to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad/Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Ayush Pandey involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:-

¶14

a. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

b. The appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

c. The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶17

d. The appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ayush Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayush Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Pradeep Kumar Nigam and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Supriya Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahul Shivshankar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh @ Nanku Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Prabha Shankar Yadav @ Gulle Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Balak Vs State of U.P.