Guddu Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36455

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4447 of 2025

Applicant :- Guddu Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Guddu Pandey with a prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.218 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 316(5), 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 26 Indian Forest Act and Sections 27, 29, 31 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur.

¶8

3. The prosecution story in nutshell is that the forest guards allegedly, on the basis of information supplied, seized forest produce in form of trees which had been cut down and were being sought to be transported.

¶9

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the first information report and he was not even taken into custody on the spot. He further submits that the

¶10

applicant has criminal history of three cases, which have sufficiently been explained by him in paragraph No.21 to the instant application, and he is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that identically situated co-accused, Shriman Narayan Shukla alias Pintu Shukla has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4524 of 2025 and he is seeking the parity of the same. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, but he could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused, Shriman Narayan Shukla alias Pintu Shukla has already been enlarged on bail

¶13

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025, who has previous criminal history of three cases, which have sufficiently been explained by him in paragraph No.21 to the instant application. Identically situated coaccused, Shriman Narayan Shukla alias Pintu Shukla has already been enlarged on bail. There is

¶14

no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶15

8. 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.

¶16

9. Let the applicant, Guddu Pandey involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) 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

¶19

the Indian Penal Code;

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

10. 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.

¶23

11. 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.

¶24

[Shree Prakash Singh, J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 25.6.2025 cks/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Pandey 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

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arti @ Munni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Hom Deptt. Lko .

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

Altaf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anoop Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Karan Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others