Disposed

Jyotiraditya Pandey @ Nitin Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2024ABAIL/2691/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants interim anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving IPC charges. The court imposed specific conditions including appearing for interrogation and not tampering with evidence, ordering the matter for listing at an early date.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions regarding availability for interrogation and non-influence of witnesses.

Jyotiraditya Pandey @ Nitin Pandey vs State of U.P… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2691 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Jyotiraditya Pandey @ Nitin Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Mishra,Anchal Verma,Dhanesh Narayan,Ram Suphal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 439 of 2020, under sections 323, 325, 308, 504, 506, 120-B of the IPC,Police Station-Kandhai, District-Pratapgarh.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that the applicant is not named in the first information report, but, he has been connoted through the relationship, and thus this is not possible to ascertain that the applicant is the same person. He next added that the chargesheet has been filed and there is no complaint that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation proceedings.

¶8

Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant undertakes that he will always cooperate in the trial proceedings. He added that the applicant is residing at district-Basti and the alleged incident is said to have taken place at district-Pratapgarh and no motive is assigned. He also submits that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the case of the other coaccused persons, who are named in the first information report. He also added that there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest the applicant and as such, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the

¶10

State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶12

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Jyotiraditya Pandey @ Nitin Pandey, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

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

¶16

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2

¶21

returnable at an early date.

¶22

Steps be taken within a week.

¶23

If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

¶24

List/put up this matter in the Third Week of January,2025.

¶25

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits.

¶26

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 AKS

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jyotiraditya Pandey @ Nitin Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyotiraditya Pandey @ Nitin Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jamuna Prasad Pandey @ Jamuna Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dharmendra Kumar @ Umesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neeraj Kumar Raidas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pramod vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vashudev Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Bechan Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.