Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Vivek Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 239 of 2025 Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Vivek Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Himanshu Suryavanshi

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Yadav,Archana Yadav,Sunil Kumar Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.0059 of 2023 under Section 406, 419, 420, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B Indian Penal Code, Police Station P.G.I, Lucknow.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA as well as Shri Abhishek Yadav, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He is a junior lawyer working under Rakesh Kumar Verma, a practicing advocate at the District Court, Allahabad. It is alleged that the applicant introduced Mayank Kumar Verma to the complainant. A sale deed was executed between Mayank Kumar Verma and Poonam Mishra.

¶8

It has been further submitted that it was the buyer's obligation to verify the title of the land before purchasing the land. Considering these aspects, the applicant’s earlier anticipatory bail application was allowed vide order dated 03.09.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1288/2024, however, life of the order was only till filing the police report. The charge sheet was filed and the anticipatory bail application granted to the applicant came to an

¶9

end.

¶10

It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that the duration of an anticipatory bail order does not necessarily end when the accused is summoned by the Court or when charges are framed but may extend until the conclusion of the trial. In support of this argument, he has relied on the judgment of Dr. Rajesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, LL 2021 SC 140. Emphasis is on para 7 and 8.

¶11

It is submitted that the applicant is innocent. The applicant has never absconded. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application. However, learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation.

¶13

On due consideration to the fact that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the applicant has failed to cooperate in the investigation, the role assigned to him in the prosecution case, the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Rajesh Pratap Singh (supra), and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 , subject to his cooperation in the trial.

¶14

In view of the above, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court within twenty days from today. The accused applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any

¶16

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 tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

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

¶20

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶21

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 R.C.

¶24

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

Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Vivek Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Vivek Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ram Sewak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Jai Bajrang Traders Ayodhya Thru. Proprietor Manish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Khalid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Satish Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shankar Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others