Allowed

Satya Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2025BAIL/147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for crimes under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC regarding country made liquor licence fraud, the court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, noting the applicant's lack of criminal history and prima facie grounds for relief under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Satya Prakash Pandey on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

Satya Prakash Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1355

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 147 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Satya Prakash Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the 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 a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.618 of 2024, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali City, District Hardoi.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that in the year 2018-19 a licence of country made liquor was issued in favour of the applicant and subsequently an agreement was done between the applicant and Kuldeep Agarwal for running the liquor shop. He further submitted that on 18.4.2021 the applicant wrote a letter to the District Excise Officer, District Hardoi that renewal for the liquor shop has not been requested to the Department by the applicant for 2021-22 and in fact, Kuldeep Agarwal has committed cheat and fraud as he applied for renewal of the licence and he also submitted F.D.R. which was prepared from the account of uncle of Kuldeep Agarwal. He added that four F.I.Rs. have been lodged against uncle and the applicant has been made scapegoat though he was never involved in any offence and he has not submitted any FDR for renewal of the country made liquor licence after 2019. There is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 28 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.11.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released

¶10

on bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that in the year 2018-19 a licence of country made liquor was issued in favour of the applicant and subsequently an agreement was done between the applicant and Kuldeep Agarwal for running the liquor shop; the applicant has not submitted any FDR for renewal of the country made liquor licence after 2019; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 28 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.11.2024; and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

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 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 case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Satya Prakash Pandey 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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

¶18

initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Ram Murti

¶22

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

Satya Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Naval Kishore Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Raghvendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Ramesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

C/M Rashtriya Inter College Barabanki Thru. Manager Sunil Kumar Singh @ Sunil Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Anoop vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.