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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48982

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5578 of 2025

Applicant :- Sandeep Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Vikram Shahi,Gyan Sagar Gupta

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Singh Vishen

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Gyan Sagar Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Brijesh Singh Vishen, the learned counsel for the complainant. Rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, which are taken on record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0107 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 28.02.2020, alleging that the complainant had made investments in the Company- Shine City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. but no return was paid on his investments and the complainant was duped.

¶10

Although, the applicant is named in the F.I.R but there is no specific allegation of commission of any act by him.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant's involvement in nine other cases have been disclosed in the affidavit and in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application, all of which are similar in nature arising out of non return of investments made in CompanyShine City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. He further submitted that the applicant was a paid worker for the Company.

¶13

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and she has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has already been submitted.

¶14

The learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the applicant has received money in his account from the account of a Company, which appears to be a part of the proceeds of crime of a Company.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a coaccused person, Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Shukla, has already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case by means of an order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 686 of 2022. Another co-accused Tej Narayen Shukla, has already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case by means of an order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the Sessions Court, Lucknow.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Sandeep Pandey be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Preeti.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Kamlesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Laxmi Devi and Another Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Distt. Shrawasti and 2 Others

Amit Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Nazma Bano @ Bauna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suraj Kanaujia vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others