Deepak Dev Pandey vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32400

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6919 of 2025

Applicant :- Deepak Dev Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Singh,Ajeet Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application, under Section 483 B.N.S.S., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 699 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station- Robertstganj, District- Sonbhadra during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 25.11.2023. The first information report was lodged on 28.11.2023. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. False recovery of the alleged motorcycle has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Tappu @ Nigam Dev Pandey. Further, identically placed co-accused Tappu @ Nigam Dev Pandey has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 3.9.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27260 of 2024. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 7 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 29.11.2023. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. There is delay in lodging the first information report. Identically placed co-accused Tappu @ Nigam Dev Pandey has been granted bail by this Court. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one year three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the

¶11

fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Deepak Dev Pandey involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶13

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶15

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

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 S.S.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak Dev Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Dev Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Usman Ali @ Tanaku @ Ajay @ Alam vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ikrar Ahmand vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar vs State of U.P.

Suresh Pasi vs State of U.P.

Sukhvendra Kumar vs State of U.P.