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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13807

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1688 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Dheerendra Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

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.261 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali Nagar, District -Balrampur.

¶9

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 the applicant is marginal witness and he is not the beneficiary of the sale consideration. He added that vendor has already been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9196 of 2024, vide order dated 30.8.2024 and the applicant is seeking parity of the same. He further submitted that there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 17 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.1.2025 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

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 on bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is marginal witness and he is not the beneficiary of the sale consideration; vendor has already been granted bail; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 17 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.1.2025; 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 Dheerendra Kumar 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 initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.3.2025/Ram Murti

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheerendra Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naseem Ahmad (Dr. Naseem as Per Fir) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko.

Satyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Brijesh Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chier Secy. Home Lko.

Hausila Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rakesh Kumar Surana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Piyush Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. and Another