Smt. Neelam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.385 of 2024, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activity Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the gang chart, one case has been shown against the applicant, and in that case she has already been enlarged on bail. copy of the said bail order is on record as Annexure No. 3 to the bail application. Apart from the above cases, there is one other criminal history against the applicant in that case she has been enlarged on bail a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -4 to the bail application.

¶12

It is also submitted that co-accused Kamlesh Dubey @ Babbu has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.9.2025 passed in Bail Application No.9051 of 2025. He seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused.

¶13

It is also submitted that the applicant is in custody since 19.8.2025 and in case she is granted the facility of bail, there is no apprehension of his fleeing from the course of justice. She undertakes to abide by all conditions that may be imposed by the Court below and to cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of the

¶14

BAIL No. 10974 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

trial.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute that it is a case of parity.

¶18

On due consideration to the fact that in the case mentioned in the gang chart the applicant has been enlarged on bail and except the cases shown in the gang chart there is one more criminal history of the applicant; the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.8.2025; coaccused, named above, has already been granted bail, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶20

Let the applicant, Neelam Pandey involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(iii) 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.

¶24

(iv) 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. 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.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶26

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each

¶27

BAIL No. 10974 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

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 (Now Section 269 of BNS).

¶30

(vii) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶32

November 12, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶33

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Neelam Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. 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

Manmohan @ Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Abhay Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 3 Others

Yogendra Singh @ Jogendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Smt. Neelam Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

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