Vishal Pandey @ Piyush Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48413

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13331 of 2024

Applicant :- Vishal Pandey @ Piyush Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is the second bail application of the applicant- Vishal Pandey @ Piyush Pandey S/o Late Ram Ji Pandey which has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.698 of 2022 under sections 302, 307, 504, 336, 34 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Atrauli, district Hardoi. The first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.6578 of 2023 was dismissed by this court vide order dated 15.02.2024. The order is extracted below:-

¶8

"1.Heard Mr. Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Alok Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant on this bail application filed in case crime No.698 of 2022 under sections 302, 307, 504, 336, 34 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Atrauli, district Hardoi, and perused the record.

¶9

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that informant? brothers Sanad Pandey alias Sanu and Rajat Pandey, after closing their shop, were going to Bharawan crossing for purchasing some household goods. In the way, they were stopped by the coaccused Mangla Prasad Pandey in front of his house and started hurling abuses due to old enmity of political rivalry, etc. When the brothers of the informant objected him from hurling abuses then his grand-son namely Vishal, i.e. applicant, started assaulting them by bricks, due to which, Sanad Pandey alias Shanu received head injury and fell down. When the brothers of the informant tried to run away then the applicant brought a gun from his house and fired at Sanad Pandey, which accidentally hit to another member of his family Vishal Pandey,

¶10

who was trying to intervene the matter.

¶11

It is further alleged in the first information report that when Rajat Pandey confronted the accused persons then both the accused persons dragged him into their house and assaulted him and eventually fired at him, which led to his death. At the time of incident, the informant was present in the market and on his hue and cry, when the people rushed to intervene the matter then the accused Mangla Charan Pandey went inside his house and started firing from his roof. Both the injured persons were sent for medical treatment. It is also alleged that both the accused persons, alongwith the gun, ran away from the place of alleged incident.

¶12

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the eye witnesses Sanad Pandey and Vishal Pandey have assigned common role of firing on the deceased Rajat Pandey to the applicant and the co-accused Mangla Charan Pandey. Admittedly, there is one double barrel gun used in the murder of the deceased Rajat Pandey. Post mortem report show that there is single fire arm wound of entry 9cm x 4cm. It is submitted that it is not possible that two persons, i.e. the applicant and the coaccused both by a common weapon shall cause fire arm injury which resulted into death of the deceased. It is not clear from the statement of the eye witnesses as to who is the assailant.

¶13

It is submitted that the injured Sanad Pandey has received no injury and this fact has been admitted in the counter affidavit in para 19 thereof. It is further submitted that mother of the applicant has moved an application under section 156(3) CrPC alleging that the accused persons were attacked. The incident has taken place in front of the house of the accused. The injured and the deceased were aggressor. The application under section 156(3) CrPC which is pending disposal is on record. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

4.Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and drawn the attention of this court towards the statement of the eye witness Ashish Awasthi who has assigned the role of causing fire arm injury to Vishal. It is submitted that the incident as per site plan annexed along with the counter affidavit has occurred at two places. At place ? N?, the injured was shot by the applicant and the co-accused persons dragged the deceased inside their house and he was shot dead. The complicity of the applicant is corroborated by the statement of the injured witness as well as the eye witnesses. It is a day light murder and a heinous offence. No case for bail is made out and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶15

5.A perusal of the post mortem report shows the following injury :

¶16

"A fire arm wound of entry 9cm x 4cm present on near left ear wound starting from below and lateral to left ear and extended to lat. Neck on left side up to level of left thyroid cartilage. Bone of left mandible fractured. Callon of abrasion ring and blackening present around the wound margin inverted. Ecchymosis present underneath injury."

¶17

6.Although as per statement of the injured witnesses, namely Sanad Pandey and Vishal Pandey, both the accused persons have been assigned the role of firing to the deceased, however, as per statement of the eye witnesses, there is one injury in the form of ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased. It is clear from the statement of the injured witness that the fatal blow of causing fire arm injury has been assigned to the coaccused Mangala Charan to the deceased according to the applicant.

¶18

As per statement of the injured witness as well as eye witnesses, role of causing injury to the injured Vishal Pandey has been assigned to the applicant, however, the applicant has also been assigned the role of dragging the deceased from point No.'N' to 'F' as shown in the site plan filed along with the counter affidavit, along with the co-accused. Thus, prima facie it cannot be said that the complicity of the applicant is not there. It is a heinous offence committed in broad day light. I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶19

7.The bail application is rejected. "

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that five prosecution witnesses have been examined and out of five, four are witnesses of fact including the alleged injured witnesses. He submits that role of firing to the injured Vishal Pandey S/o Jitendra Kumar Pandey has been assigned to the applicant. Applicant has not been assigned the role of firing to the deceased. He submits that although the injured Vishal Pandey has received firearm injuries however, no medico legal examination has been conducted. He submits that another injured Sanad Kumar Pandey has also not been medically examined. He submits that both injured Vishal Pandey and

¶21

Sanad Pandey have not been examined at all although in the statement of P.W.3 it is alleged that Sanad Pandey injured was admitted in Trauma Centre, Lucknow for two days. It is also stated by P.W.3 that he received fire shot injury in the chest however, no investigation at all has been conducted regarding the injury of the two injured. Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. No fact witness remains to be examined. There is no chance of tampering the evidence after examination of five witnesses still 19 witnesses are yet to be examined. Applicant is in jail since 28.11.2022.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer however, from the record he could not show that both injured Vishal Pandey as well as Sanad Pandey have been subjected to medico legal examination.

¶23

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.11.2022 having no criminal history, role of firing to the deceased is not on the present applicant, five witnesses have been examined out of five, four are fact witnesses including the injured witnesses still 19 witnesses are yet to be examined in view of judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶25

Let the applicant Vishal Pandey @ Piyush Pandey be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(v) The applicant 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 Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶31

(vi) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶32

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishal Pandey @ Piyush Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Pandey @ Piyush Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. 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

Nishant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Maynoor @ Sharukh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Singh @ Chunna Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Ashutosh Shukla @ Satyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.