Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024BAIL/1752/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Abhishek Pandey in a case involving sexual assault and abduction. Court noted applicant allegedly drove a rented vehicle and filmed the incident while the co-accused committed the assault. Bail granted subject to personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and cooperating in trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18751

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1752 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishek Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari,Vikas Misra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and charge sheet in this case has also been submitted.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Abhishek Pandey for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 0526 of 2023, under Sections 342, 366, 368 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. Though, the applicant was named in the F.I.R. but all allegations with regard to the sexual assault has been levelled against the co-accused Sunil Yadav and the role of filming a video of the incident has been assigned to the applicant. In the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also, the role of only driving the vehicle has been assigned to the applicant and the role of filming a video has been attributed to co-accused Sameer. Thus, neither the role of sexual assault nor filming any video has been attributed to the instant applicant by victim.

¶11

It is also submitted that in fact the impugned vehicle was taken on rent by the co-accused Sunil Yadav and in this regard attention of this Court has been drawn on the papers of the vehicle placed at Page No. 29 and 30 of the paper book as well as the receipt of Rs. 1001/- through online mode, screenshot of the same placed on Page No. 31 of the paper book.

¶12

It is further submitted that charge sheet in this case has been

¶13

filed against the applicant only under Sections 342, 366, 368 and 120-B I.P.C. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 13.12.2023 and he is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the role of only driving a vehicle has been assigned to the instant applicant and the defence of the applicant appears to be that vehicle was taken on rent by the main accused Sunil Yadav and in support of this contention the papers of the vehicle pertaining to the permit obtained with regard to the said vehicle on all India basis and receipt of Rs. 1001/- from the co-accused Sunil Yadav on 04.12.2023, copies of which has been placed at Page Nos. 29 and 31 of the paper book, have been highlighted. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 13.12.2023 without any criminal antecedents. Charge sheet in this case has also been filed and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Abhishek Pandey involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Praveen

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek 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

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Vijay Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gajraj Kunwar Jain vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director , Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad

Mohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Gunjan Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow