Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sunder Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 518 of 2025

¶3

Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sunder Pandey

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surya Prakash Singh, Shubhranshu Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 13

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.05.2025:

¶12

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party.

¶13

2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 38 of 2024, under Sections 411, 413, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, P.S. Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur.

¶14

3. As per contents of F.I.R. in which applicant is not named, allegation levelled is that the persons nominated therein were instrumental in stealing tractor and selling them off and substantially reduced rates than the market price.

¶15

4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him and his name has been introduced only on the alleged confessional statement of persons who have been taken into custody. It is submitted that previous criminal history of three cases of applicant have already been explained and that there is no direct or indirect evidence against applicant. It is submitted that investigation is still ongoing in which applicant undertakes to co-operate.

¶16

5. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions has opposed bail application with submission that although the applicant's name has been introduced on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused but is not co-operating in the investigation due

¶17

ABAIL No. 518 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

to which non-bailable warrants have been issued.

¶20

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that applicant is not nominated in the FIR and his name has been introduced only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused. Investigation is still on going in which applicant undertakes to co-operate in the investigation.

¶21

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail.

¶22

8. Let the accused-applicant Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sunder Pandey as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶23

9. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) That the accused-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.

¶25

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

¶26

10. List this case on 13.06.2025, as fresh.

¶27

11. Applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.05.2025 at 02:00 PM.

¶28

12. Learned AGA shall obtain instructions by the next date of listing with regard to co-operation of applicant in the investigation."

¶29

In spite of expiry of sufficient period, the State has not filed any counter affidavit.

¶30

The learned A.G.A. does not allege violation of any condition of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶31

Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is nothing

¶32

ABAIL No. 518 of 2025

¶33

3

¶34

which may persuade this Court from taking a different view than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶35

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 12.05.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶36

September 17, 2025 S. Shivhare

¶37

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶38

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

Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sunder Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sunder Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Ankur Srivastava @ Ankur Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Annexe Bhawan Lko. and Another

Hamesh @ Ram Sewak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kameshwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ahsab Ahmad @ Aisab Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Shri Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Kailash Tiwari @ Kailash Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another