Dinesh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3839 of 2025

Dinesh Pathak

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharvan Kumar Pandey, Beauty Singh, Devendra Kumar Singh, Jyoti Gupta, Madhulika Yadav, Manisha Yadav, Prashant Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

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

¶10

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025 under Section 318(4), 319(2), 337, 338, 339, 341 BNS and Section 66 C Information Technology Act, Police Station Harraiya, District Balrampur.

¶11

As per recovery memo, police team acting on the basis of tip of provided by police informer, said to have raided a shop on 16th February, 2025 which was in the name of Pradeep Pathak and the applicant who allegedly admitted their role in creation of fabricated documents.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from a perusal of the confessional statement of the applicant recorded in police custody, it is evident that the applicant was given a laptop and a sum of Rs.50,000/- by coaccused Suneel Yadav and Santosh Gupta. It is further submitted that both the aforesaid co-accused, as well as another co-accused, Arun Kumar, have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 29.04.2025, 21.04.2025, and 20.05.2025, respectively. It is also submitted that the alleged system/laptop along with its native software was provided by Santosh Gupta, co-accused, and the applicant is alleged to have operated the said laptops supplied by the co-accused.

¶13

BAIL No. 3839 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Learned counsel contends that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of only one case in which a final report has already been filed. This fact has been admitted by the learned State counsel in his counter affidavit (CA-8). The applicant is in judicial custody since 18.02.2025.

¶16

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the main accused, who was operating the centre from which the alleged forgery was committed.

¶18

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶19

On due consideration of the bail orders passed in favour of the co-accused persons named above, the role assigned to the applicant, the facts that prima facie there appears to be no independent witness to the alleged recovery; the applicant is in custody since 18.02.2025; charge sheet has already been filed in the matter and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Dinesh Pathak 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 court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

BAIL No. 3839 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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 IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶29

(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 IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶30

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.

¶31

October 27, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

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

Dinesh Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Manish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Sumit Kanaujia Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mo Zeeshan Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Ganesh Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

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