Allowed

Puneet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2024ABAIL/2454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Justice Shree Prakash Singh extended bail to Puneet Pandey pending trial in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 427, 336 IPC, subject to standard conditions and security.

What did the court decide?

Extended anticipatory bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, no tampering, no leaving India, court appearance, and non-intimidation of witness

Puneet Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75729

¶2

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2454 of 2024 Applicant :- Puneet Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the State is taken on record.

¶5

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

¶6

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 427, 336 IPC, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report, though from the statements of the witnesses, it is evident that the different role has been assigned to the applicant in some of the statements. In some of the statements, it was said that the applicant was not present and in the other statements, altogether different role is assigned. He also added that the chargesheet has been filed and there is no complaint that the applicant has ever absconded from any proceeding. He next added that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained and he was never involved in committing the offence and he submits that the name of the applicant is placed on the basis of suspicion and even he has not been seen in the CCTV Footage. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that he will never abscond and will cooperate in the investigation proceedings. He further further submits that there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest him without any reason and thus, submission is that he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that though the applicant is not named in the First Information Report but the witnesses have named him. He also added that the chargesheet has already been filed, but he has failed to demonstrate from

¶9

any of the assertion of the counter affidavit that the applicant is not cooperating in any proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 374 of 2019. The fact also remains that the chargesheet has also been filed and a specific plea has been taken by learned counsel for the applicant that he will not abscond from any proceeding including the proceeding of the trial.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that applicant is not named in the First Information Report; there is contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, wherein some witnesses have assigned the role of the applicant in the incident but some other have stated that the applicant was not present on the place of occurrence; the applicant is not seen in the CCTV Footage; there is no complaint of non-cooperation of the applicant in any of the proceeding and the applicant has undertaken that he will cooperate in the investigation proceedings including the trial proceedings.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Puneet Pandey, involved in the aforementioned crime number, in the event of his arrest, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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;

¶14

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

¶15

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶16

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.11.2024/kkv/

¶19

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

Puneet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Bhim Saroj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Chaman Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer N.C.B Lko

Mosin @Mohsim Vs state of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and others

Amresh Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Brijbushan Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Vikas Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.