Allowed

Ramashankar Pandey @ Mallan Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025ABAIL/507/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an FIR for rioting and attempt to murder offences. Granting bail on parity with a co-accused similarly granted anticipatory bail the same day, the court enlarged the applicant on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Ramashankar Pandey @ Mallan Pandey vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18506

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 507 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ramashankar Pandey @ Mallan Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Rai,Vibhu Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J .

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ramashankar Pandey @ Mallan Pandey, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 235 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station- Kaundhiyara, District- Prayagraj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the co-accused, Daya Shankar Pandey, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court today, i.e., 7.2.2025 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 256 of 2025. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity for the reasons given in anticipatory bail application of co-accused. He has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶10

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered/about to be registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶14

The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶15

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;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶18

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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Ruchi Agrahari

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramashankar Pandey @ Mallan Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashankar Pandey @ Mallan Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X Juvenile vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Jaiprakash Mishra @ Chhotkau vs State of U.P. and Another

Nisha Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaiveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nazia Amin vs State of U.P.