Anoop Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15331

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2693 of 2024 Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Upadhyay,Abhishek Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Tiwari,Ashok Kumar Singh,Pawan Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Case called out.

¶6

No one is present for the applicant.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC./482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 714 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶9

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 12.2.2025, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶10

" Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶12

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 714 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶13

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is noway involved in committing the offence and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that there was a dispute in between the parties with respect to Committee of Management and due to animosity, the story is cooked up and applicant is implicated. Further submission is that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceeding and the chargesheet has been filed and now no custodial interrogation is required. He also added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant and he undertakes that he would always remain present over there on his requirement, thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that conduct of the applicant is against the law and he has committed cheat and fraud, as he fabricated certain documents with respect to Committee of Management and regarding appointment of certain teachers and, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, it seems that the applicant is noway involved in committing the offence; the applicant has been implicated in the matter due to animosity; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceeding and chargesheet has been filed in the matter; the applicant is ready to remain present before the trial court, as and when required, thus, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶16

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Anoop Kumar Pandey, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶24

List/put up this matter in the second week of March, 2025.

¶25

In the meantime, learned counsel for the opposite parties may file their counter affidavits."

¶26

From perusal of the order dated 12.2.2025, it transpires that learned State Counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant were directed to file counter affidavit but the same has not been filed as yet. Learned State Counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail

¶27

application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly 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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Shravan

¶36

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

Anoop Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Mo. Vasim Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Vijay Kant Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ajay Kumar Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Harvesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs Lko.