Surendra Prasad Goand and Another vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38666

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 811 of 2025

Applicant :- Surendra Prasad Goand And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Bahadur Yadav,Sanjeev Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, holding brief of Sri Ajay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

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

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 627 of 2022 registered under Sections 420, 406, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station- Kasya, District Kushi Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

This is the second anticipatory bail application. The first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused person, Mastaraj Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3330 of 2024. Therefore, the present applicants are also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicants undertake that they will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicants has been explained.

¶12

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the

¶13

parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶14

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶16

Let the accused-applicants - Surendra Prasad Goand and Dinanath Yadav be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 him 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 charge-sheet 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; (vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

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

¶23

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Sumit S

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Prasad Goand and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prasad Goand and Another v. State of U.P.

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

Anshuman Alias Chanchal vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Durgawati Devi @ Heerawati vs State of U.P.

Dhananjay Dubey vs State of U.P.

Laxman vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another