Allowed

Dileep @ Pankaj Kashyap @ Mintoo Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024BAIL/5836/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5836 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench granted bail to Dileep @ Pankaj Kashyap @ Mintoo Singh in a case involving Sections 457, 380, 411, and 411 IPC, subject to personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions regarding attendance and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions including attendance at trial and prohibition of tampering with evidence.

Dileep @ Pankaj Kashyap @ Mintoo Singh Vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83298

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5836 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dileep @ Pankaj Kashyap @ Mintoo Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Shukla,Dharm Trivedi,Rajiv Raman Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 1093 of 2023, under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next submits that there is no independent public eye witness of the incident. He added that after passing 4 months of the incident, the applicant has been connected in this matter. He added that there are as many as as 28 cases criminal history of the applicant which has been explained in Paragraph 16 of the bail application and most of them pertain to the theft. He added that the police apprehends and connects the applicant in several cases in the year, 2013 and so as in the subsequent years. He also added that the chargesheet has been filed in the matter, therefore, there is no possibility that the applicant will tamper the evidences or threaten the witnesses. He next added that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and he has criminal history of 28 cases and as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no independent public eye witness of the incident and after four months of the incident the applicant has been connected in this

¶12

matter; on account of apprehension, the police has planted the applicant in several cases in the year, 2013 and so as in the subsequent years also; the chargesheet has been filed in the matter, as such, there is no chance that the applicant will tamper the evidences or threaten the witnesses; the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Dileep @ Pankaj Kashyap @ Mintoo Singh involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶20

verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 kkv/

¶23

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

Dileep @ Pankaj Kashyap @ Mintoo Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep @ Pankaj Kashyap @ Mintoo Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Intezar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Jeeshan Ahmad @ Ahmad Kalam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Sukesh Rajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

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