Allowed

Sanjay Pandey v. State of Up

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024ABAIL/10633/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant, Sanjay Pandey, who faced allegations under IPC and IT Act sections. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court granted bail with specific conditions pending the trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till the conclusion of trial on personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Sanjay Pandey vs State of Up — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:186748

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10633 of 2024 Applicant :- Sanjay Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.116 of 2022, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 66D I.T. Act, at Police Station- Kotwali Shahar, District- Mirzapur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail, till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., vide order dated 10.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.5030 of 2023. Subsequent to it, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted till submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶9

In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154 , wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a nonbailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has

¶11

stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Supreme Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.

¶14

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Sanjay Pandey be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(ii). that 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;

¶18

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.11.2024/ Vikas

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Pandey v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Pandey v. State of Up

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nitin Pandey @ Adarsh Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Alka Alias Alkesh Devi vs State of Up

Dr Mahboob vs State of U.P.

Gaffar Malik Alias Abdul Gaffar vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Agrahari vs State of Up and Another

Jeet @ Gagandeep Singh Mehata vs State of U.P. and Another