Allowed

Mintu Pandey @ Mantu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024CRLA/106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court quashed an order rejecting bail, setting aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2024. The Court allowed the appeal and released the appellant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court presence and conduct.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection order dated 05.01.2024 was set aside. The appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Mintu Pandey @ Mantu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11109

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 106 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Mintu Pandey @ Mantu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ram Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant for quashing the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, District- Unnao in Bail Application No. 4015 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 308, 427, 325, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5A), 3(1)da & dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gangaghat, District- Unnao; for releasing appellant on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that a false first information report came to be lodged against five named accused persons including the present appellant and some unknown accused persons. It is further submitted that according to first information report, the injured was assaulted by all accused persons, but no specific allegation has been made against the present appellant. It is further submitted that there were four injured in this case, however, injuries were not fatal to life and there is nothing on record to suggest as to which injury was caused by the present appellant. It is further submitted that one of co-accused persons, namely, Cheenu @ Suraj against whom charge sheet has been filed but not under SC/ST Act, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 02.03.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13623 of 2022; the role of the present appellant is identical to the co-accused, Cheenu @ Suraj. It is further submitted that the other co-accused person, namely, Rajnish Lodhi alias Rajnish Kumar has also been enlarged on bail in Crl. Appeal No. 1832 of 2022 vide order dated 16.03.2023. It is further submitted that the trial is

¶9

not going on and the appellant, who is in jail since 06.12.2023, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant, but he does not dispute over the other factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant including the fact that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, bail orders of co-accused persons as well as other relevant documents; this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, District- Unnao is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Mintu Pandey @ Mantu 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:-

¶14

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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.

¶16

(iii) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

¶18

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 Arpan

¶20

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

Mintu Pandey @ Mantu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mintu Pandey @ Mantu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

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

Ram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Harinath Alias Dhanai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Nakul Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Shivam Yadav Thru. His Father Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prof. Ranjana Sharma and Another vs Mr. Partha Sarathi Sen Sharma, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and Another

Virendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 Others