Allowed

Dheeraj Pandey v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024/985/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 302 IPC for alleged murder of the applicant's wife. The court noted absence of direct evidence, a recovery without independent witnesses, no criminal antecedents, and prosecution's failure to proceed with trial, and allowed regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions to attend hearings, refrain from similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

Dheeraj Pandey Vs State of U.P. through… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15318

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 985 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Dheeraj Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.688 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Rae Bareli.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the niece of the informant was married to the applicant and when he came to Rae Bareli on 12.12.2020, he was informed by the sister of the informant that the niece was inside the room and was not opening the door. When the informant went there, he found that the door was open by breaking it and inside the room, the niece of the informant was lying dead and her head was badly affected. It was expressed that the husband of the deceased i.e. the applicant, was an easy going person and was not doing anything and on account of their dispute, it was apprehended that the applicant had committed the offence in question.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the informant was not even made the witness in the trial. He also draws my attention to the fact that the deceased and her maternal uncle's terms were not good. He also argues that solely based upon a confessional statement and on recovery which is admittedly not even in the presence of any independent witness - and even relatives have refused to become the witness to the alleged recovery - there is no evidence against the applicant to link him with the offence in question. It is further argued that in the present case, charges were framed on 08.11.2021, however, despite time and dates being fixed, no one is coming for adducing the evidence as is clear from the data downloaded from the e-court services, which records that on any of the dates, the evidence is not forthcoming.

¶10

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶11

6. Considering the fact that there is no direct evidence to link

¶12

the applicant with the offence in question coupled with the fact that the prosecution is not taking the trial forward, the applicant, who is in custody since 13.12.2010 and has no criminal antecedent, is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶13

7. Let the applicant Dheeraj Pandey be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) 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

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 nishant

¶18

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

Dheeraj Pandey v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Pandey v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

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

Similar cases

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Shiv Pujan Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin.Secy. Home Lko.

Waseem Ahmad @ Aman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Vishal Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Virendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Awadhesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow U.P. and Another