Pinkoo Alias Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139777

Court No. - 87

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21919 of 2025

Applicant :- Pinkoo Alias Pankaj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Rai,Hemant Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Kamal Kishor, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Hemant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This bail application has been filed with prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.586 of 2024, under Sections 8/22/29/60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Jalesar, District- Etah, during pendency of trial before the court below.

¶8

It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that the name of the applicant has transpired on the confessional statement of co-accused Shailesh Kumar. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further contended that similarly situated co-accused Shailesh and Gurudayal Nishad, have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 16.06.2025 and 16.06.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.17015 of 2025 and 17046 of 2025, respectively. He further submits that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.03.2025.

¶9

On the other hand the learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, however, he does not dispute the above submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

The name of the applicant has transpired on the confessional statement of co-accused Shailesh Kumar. Nothing incriminating is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The similarly situated coaccused Shailesh and Gurudayal Nishad, have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 16.06.2025 and 16.06.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.17015 of 2025 and 17046 of 2025, respectively. The case of applicant is not

¶11

distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons Shailesh and Gurudayal Nishad. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.03.2025.

¶12

In view of the above, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merit, a case for grant of bail is made out.

¶13

The application for bail is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Pinkoo Alias Pankaj Kumar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

i. 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.

¶16

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.8.2025 VKG

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pinkoo Alias Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinkoo Alias Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P.

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

Mukim and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kunwarpal and Another vs State of U.P.

Sushil Kumar Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Samrun Nisha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Fakruddin Alias Khabruddin vs State of U.P.

Shailendra Singh vs State of U.P.