Allowed

Sanjay Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024/9075/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sanjay Pandey in a cheating case involving unfair means in public examinations, granting parity with co-accused already on bail and imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering and absenteeism.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding tampering, witness pressure, and court attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58176

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9075 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant was not arrested from the spot. The complicity of the applicant has been alleged in the confessional statement of the co-accused Dinesh Saini who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 8908 of 2024. The other accused persons namely Manmohan Yogi, Mithlesh Kumar Meena, Ashish Kumar Gurjar, Jagdish Mali, Khusi Ram Meena, Dhan Singh Meena and Hemant Kumar have also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.08.2024, 21.08.2024 and 20.08.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application Nos. 8652/2024, 8905/2024, 8829/2024, 8808/2024, 8834/2024, 8880/2024, 8940/2024. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the orders of the co-accused persons.

¶8

It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 09.08.2024 without having any criminal history. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not

¶10

dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the fact that named co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.08.2024 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Sanjay Pandey, involved in Case Crime No. 266/2024, under Sections 112/238-B/318(4) of BNS and Section 8/13(4) and 11/13(5) of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Ordinance, 2024, Police Station - Talgaon, District - Sitapur, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his 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.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant 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 applicant 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 R.C.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Mohd. Haneef Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others

Dharmendra Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Suraj Dhanraj Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Krishna Kumar @ Kallu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.