Allowed

Sandeep @ Prateek Kumar Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024BAIL/2294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder case, noting a discrepancy between twelve accused and only two injuries, and observing that several co-accused had already been released on bail by the same court.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions regarding court attendance, testimony interference, and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Sandeep @ Prateek Kumar Pasi vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26932

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2294 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep @ Prateek Kumar Pasi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Subodh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.540 of 2023 under Sections 147, 302, 201, 34, Police Station Phoolbehar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he is in jail since 1.11.2023. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, twelve persons were involved in the crime in question but only two injuries were found on the body of the injured. He further submits that co-accused, Bhawani Singh, Jaipal Gautam and Anoop Rajbhar & Sheru Kumar @ Arun Kumar Rajbhar having identical role, have already been granted bail by this Court, vide orders dated 22.3.2024, 28.3.2024 & 21.2.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.673 of 2024, 3217 of 2024 & 342 of 2024 (bail orders provided by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record). In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail, but he conceded the fact that co-accused, Bhawani Singh, Jaipal Gautam and Anoop Rajbhar & Sheru Kumar @ Arun Kumar Rajbhar have already been granted bail by this Court.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents, bail order of the co-accused, co-accused, Bhawani Singh, Jaipal Gautam and Anoop Rajbhar & Sheru Kumar @ Arun Kumar Rajbhar as well as totality of fact and circumstances, it is evident that involvement of twelve persons have been levelled in the crime in question but only two injuries were found on the body of the injured, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Let applicant - Sandeep @ Prateek Kumar Pasi - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶13

(ii) 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) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence

¶17

proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 Gaurav/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep @ Prateek Kumar Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep @ Prateek Kumar Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. 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

Abid Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sangam Kumar Verma @ Sangam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Subrato Mukherjee Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Abdul Rahim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Mohd. Arshad Ansari vs Sri. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Tehsildar, Tehsil Kaisarganj Distt. Bahraich

Purushottam Verma vs Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Managing Director, U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Lko.