Ranjeet Pandey Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27883

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 519 of 2025

Applicant :- Ranjeet Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Civil Secretariat Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Mishra,Amit Awasthi,Satish Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0566 of 2023, under Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, applicant and co-accused are said to have been instrumental in defrauding the informant on the pretext of proving loan to him from a firm by the name of Right Solution.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. He has also adverted to a previous FIR bearing Case Crime No.61 of 2023 registered on 25.02.2023 indicating the informant of present FIR as one of the accused in the said Case Crime No.61 of 2023. It has been submitted that the allegations levelled in the present FIR matched those made in the Case Crime No.61 of 2023 in which the present informant is also indicated as one of the accused. It is therefore submitted that in fact the present FIR has been lodged only in an effort by the informant to extricate himself from being an accused in Case Crime No.61 of 2023. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 31.08.2024 and his previous criminal history has already been explained in affidavit.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that content of FIR clearly indicate the defrauding of informant by the applicant and co-accused. It is however

¶11

admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained in the rejoinder affidavit.

¶12

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶14

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶15

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that allegations levelled in the present FIR and that of Case Crime No.61 of 2023 are materially similar in which the present informant is also indicated as one of the co-accused alongwith applicant. It also appears that main gist of allegations in the present FIR have been made against one Virendra Kumar with applicant being indicated as one of his accomplices. Applicant is under incarceration since 31.08.2024 in which as per submission of learned counsel for applicant with which even charges have not yet been framed.

¶16

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Ranjeet Pandey , involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are

¶19

being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) 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.

¶21

(ii) 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 Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Satish

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ranjeet Pandey v. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Pandey v. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat

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

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Lale @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ramdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Reena Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohammad Gofran @ Gufran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.