Allowed

Jitendra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024/534/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed against an order rejecting bail. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned bail rejection order, and granted bail to the appellant based on the existence of a monetary dispute and pending related NI Act proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19164

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 534 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Jitendra Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashutosh Dhar Dubey,Shadab Waheed,Syed Raza Mehdi

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2020 U/s 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police StationKotwali Nagar, District- Ayodhya; for releasing the appellant on bail in aforesaid case crime.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is admitted case of the complainant that there is a dispute related to dishonour of the cheques, as a result, complaint case filed by the complainant under the provisions of N.I. Act, and admittedly, the complaint under the provisions of N.I. Act is pending. He further submits that appellant was also implicated in two other cases in which he is on bail. He further submits that only with the intention to make pressure on the appellant, the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged. He further submits that after considering the entire material collected by the Investigating Officer, the genesis of the case appears to be as monetary dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that appellant is in jail since 09.02.2023 and the charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer U/s 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act and maximum punishment is three years in the aforesaid offense, hence, appellant is entitled for bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant. They do not dispute the fact that there is a monetary dispute between the parties.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, counter affidavit, impugned order, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that there is, admittedly, a monetary dispute between the parties and the complaint case(s) is pending under the provisions of N.I. Act. But all these relevant facts were not considered by the trial court while passing the impugned order. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case by keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed . The impugned order dated 09.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let the appellant- Jitendra 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:-

¶13

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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 with law.

¶14

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails 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.

¶16

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of

¶17

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Arpan

¶20

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

Jitendra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Shivam Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs, Lko. and Another

Babuley @ Salmaan Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mahendra Tripath Alias Mahendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr. Siddhartha Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Pappu @ Pappu Pal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shivmangal @ Mangli @ Shravan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another