Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9553

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10037 of 2024

Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kaustubh Singh,Ripu Daman Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0011 of 2024, under sections 7/13(1) b r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police StationAnti Corruption, District-Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the applicant was working as 'Lekhpal' and the matter pertains to the office of Tehsildar, to which the applicant has no concern. He next added that 'Tahrir' was moved before the officials of the anti corruption on 21-062024, whereas, the application was already moved and was rejected 4 days earlier i.e. on 17-06-2024 on the premises that the complainant was not present on the date of hearing and he failed to adduce evidences in support of the mutation proceedings. He submits that there was no occasion to demand the bribe and the prosecution has failed at every stage to substantiate that there was any opportunity or occasion for demanding the bribe. He next submits that the applicant has been implicated due to extraneous reasons and he was never involved in committing any offence. He added that the whole service career of the

¶9

applicant was unblemished and aboveboard. Further there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and the chargesheet has also been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses.

¶10

Concluding his arguments, he submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 27-06-2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27-06-2024; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant as has been explained in paragraph 22 of the bail application; the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses.

¶13

This court has noticed that the prosecution has prima-facie failed to substantiate the occasion of demand of bribe coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of

¶15

the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Pankaj Kumar , involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶18

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶19

(3) 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.; and

¶20

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 AKS

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar 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

Nandu @ Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Suraj Singh @ Surya Partap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Durgesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohd. Usman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Muslim Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Sarvan @ Sharvan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others