Allowed

Arpit Pandey @ Ganesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024BAIL/7746/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused in a murder and cheating case. Despite the heinous nature of the offence, the court granted bail post-facto observing the main accused was already on bail and no prima facie motive existed for the applicant. Various bail conditions were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding evidence tampering and court appearances.

Arpit Pandey @ Ganesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48972

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7746 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arpit Pandey @ Ganesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra,Aditya Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Attreya Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 3 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Amethi, District Amethi.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and the only evidence against the applicant is that the accused Anurag Tiwari told the present applicant with respect to the occurrence of incident on the next day. He also added that applicant himself is informant and there is no motive to kill the deceased. He submits that the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the instant offence and the main allegation is against Anurag Tiwari, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 24.6.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6391 of 2024.

¶10

Further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent which has been explained in para 27 of the affidavit filed in support of the application and the applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 16.1.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was

¶12

found that the applicant was involved in committing the offence as the main accused informed the incident to the present applicant on the next day. He also added that nature of offence is heinous and there is apprehension that present applicant would tamper the evidence and, thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that main accused Anurag Tiwari has already been enlarged on bail by this Court; role of the present applicant prima facie is that he has been informed by the main accused with respect to the occurrence of incident on the next date coupled with the fact that the present applicant is the informant in the instant matter; prima facie there seems to be no motive of the applicant to kill the deceased; the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.1.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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 case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Arpit Pandey@ Ganesh 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be 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 :- 19.7.2024 Ram Murti

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arpit Pandey @ Ganesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Pandey @ Ganesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

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

Deepu Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Mehboob Alam Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Tarkeshwar Nath Mishra vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. and Another

Abhishek Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tillu @ Sateesh Nai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.