Sri Ratnesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14684

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2054 of 2024

Applicant :- Sri Ratnesh Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Vishwakarma,Punit Kumar Yadav,Rishabh Kapoor Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

As per office report, notice was issued that has been served upon the complainant, but none is present on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 327/2023, under Sections 147/148/323/504/506/427/307 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow.

¶9

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 05.09.2024 following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶10

"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 327/2023, under Sections 147/148/323/504/506/427/307 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that general allegations of assault has been levelled on five named and one unnamed accused persons. There are three injured in this case, however, all have received injuries. It is not clear that who has caused which injury. No case under Section 307 IPC is made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a previous convict and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶15

Steps be taken within a week.

¶16

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days'

¶17

time to file counter affidavit.

¶18

List on 27.09.2024

¶19

On due consideration to the fact that the injuries received by the injured are of simple nature; general allegations of assault have been levelled to all accused persons; no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the accused persons; the applicant is not a previous convict and having no criminal history and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶21

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶22

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."

¶23

State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Sri Ratnesh Pandey till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶26

(ii) that 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/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶27

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶28

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶29

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶30

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶31

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 (Manoj K.)

¶32

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

Sri Ratnesh Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ratnesh Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Farmaan Vs Union of India Thru. Director of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Office Lko.

Pawan Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohd. Miya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Sanjay Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohammad Shahjan @ Pandiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Raheesh Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko