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

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 959 of 2025

Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Ajay Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Mani,Kumar Rahul Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. V. K. Singh, learned Government Advocate, assisted by Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sachin Kumar Pandey, advocate along with his Senior Sri Kumar Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.

¶6

2. Notably, some more counsels have filed their vakalatnama on behalf of the informant but when one counsel appearing for the informant namely Sri Sachin Kumar Pandey, along with his Senior Sri Kumar Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant are present, therefor, there is no need to hear other counsels for the informant.

¶7

3. Sri Sumit Tripathi, C.O. City, Barabanki and Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, S.H.O, Dewa, Barabanki are present in Court in compliance of the oral order of this Court on the last date to assist the Court today.

¶8

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 08.12.2024 in FIR/ Case Crime No. 837 of 2024 u/s 420, 409 IPC, P.S.- Dewa, District- Barabanki. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶9

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant has stated that the applicant is ready to settle the dispute amicably. He shall make payment of maturity amount to the informant and if the informant is ready to take a piece of land, he shall provide a piece of land to the informant equal to the maturity amount.

¶11

6. The present applicant was associated with 'Timecity Multi State Cooperative Housing Society Limited' having its registered office at Village Baburi, Gandhi Nagar Pul, District Barabanki. One Sri C.P. Shukla who was Chairman of the society resigned on 15.09.2017. Thereafter the present applicant took over the charge of Officiating Chairman till 24.11.2019. Thereafter the election of the aforesaid society was held after 2019 and the present applicant became the Chairman of the aforesaid Society.

¶12

7. As per the allegation of the F.I.R. the informant deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and the company was to pay double of the amount or to sell out one piece of land of that value but neither the amount has been returned to the informant nor any piece of land has been given to him.

¶13

8. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that though the informant had deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/only and a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was to be paid to him but on account of some compelling circumstances and some F.I.Rs. having been lodged against the applicant, he could not pay the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- nor could give a piece of land to the informant but showing his bonafide the applicant undertakes that he shall pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the informant or as soon as he is released from jail getting bail from the competent court he will provide a piece of land to the informant. Further, showing the bonafide one 'Account Payee' cheque dated 03.04.2025 of Union Bank of Rs.8,00,000/bearing Cheque No.12003507 in the name of Ramesh Chandra Yadav, the informant, has been produced before the Court submitting that the aforesaid cheque may be handed over to the counsel for the informant and if the informant is willing to get the aforesaid amount, he may deposit the aforesaid cheque in the Bank on or

¶14

after 03.04.2025 or if he is willing to get piece of land of such value he may return the same cheque to the applicant on or before 03.04.2025 and may get the piece of land of the same value. He has further submitted that if the aforesaid condition is flouted by the applicant, this may be indicated in this order that this bail application shall automatically be cancelled on such information being given either by the learned counsel for the informant or by the learned Government Advocate.

¶15

9. The photocopy of the aforesaid cheque is taken on record and thereafter receipt thereof has been obtained by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, from learned counsel for the informant.

¶16

10. On such proposition / proposal learned counsel for the informant has no objection.

¶17

11. Dr. V. K. Singh, learned Government Advocate has submitted that on the basis of allegations of the F.I.R. the present applicant has committed offence and on account of making aforesaid payment to the informant he may not be absolved from the offence committed by him though such offence would be established before the trial court, therefore, any appropriate order in the interest of the prosecution may be passed. Dr. V. K. Singh has further submitted that in the impugned FIR, the name of some more claimants have been indicated and the applicant is liable to pay the amount or to provide the piece equal to the value of the payable amount, therefore, any direction may be issued to the applicant to do the needful.

¶18

12. On that, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant has given undertaking on behalf of the applicant that besides the present informant, the applicant shall also make the payment to all those persons whose details have been indicated in the FIR, in the same manner, the applicant would settle the dispute of the informant of the FIR. To be more precise, the applicant shall pay the amount to those persons after verifying their papers showing the dues and if those persons would be interested to get the piece of land equal to the payable amount, the same would be provided to them.

¶19

13. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the bail orders which have been enclosed in the supplementary affidavit, as Annexure No SA-6, i.e. order dated 16.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 400 of 2025 (Pankaj Kumar Pathak vs. State), order dated 14.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 873 of 2025 (Pankaj Kumar Pathak vs. State),order dated 14.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 774 of 2025 (Pankaj Kumar Pathak vs. State),order dated 14.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 926 of 2025 (Pankaj Kumar Pathak vs. State), order dated 14.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 669 of 2025 (Pankaj Kumar Pathak vs. State), order dated 5.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 453 of 2025 (Pankaj Kumar Pathak vs. State). It has also been submitted that in the instant matter the investigation is pending.

¶20

14. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶21

15. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that the present applicant is willing to settle the dispute amicably and has given aforesaid post-dated 'Account Payee' cheque of Rs.8,00,000 dated 03.04.2025 bearing number 12003507 to the counsel for the informant with his undertaking that if the informant would be willing to get the piece of land of the aforesaid value the same would be provided to him after returning back the aforesaid post-dated cheque to the applicant and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, I find it appropriate that the applicant may be enlarged on interim bail till 21.04.2025 so that he could do the needful after his undertaking.

¶22

16. Since the applicant has given undertaking that

¶23

he shall also make payment to the other claimants whose details have been indicated in the impugned FIR, therefore, liberty is given to those claimants to approach the applicant through S.H.O. concerned for settling the dispute amicably and the applicant shall settle the disputes of those claimants strictly in terms of his undertaking. If the applicant settles the disputes of other claimants and information to this effect is given to the S.H.O concerned by the claimants, there would be no need to lodge fresh FIR's against the applicant as the criminal liability of the applicant would be tested during course of the trial pursuant to the present FIR in respect of the present informant as well as other claimants whose details have been indicated in the FIR but if the present applicant fails to settle the disputes of the informant and other claimants in terms of the aforesaid undertaking, liberty is given to the police officers, who are present in Court today, to take appropriate legal recourse against the applicant strictly in accordance with law.

¶24

17. Let the applicant namely Pankaj Kumar Pathak , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on interim bail till 21.04.2025 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 being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶25

(i) If the aforesaid cheque is not encashed or is bounced after being produced by the informant before his Bank on account of insufficient of funds or stop payment or for any other reason and that information is provided to this Court by means of an application being filed either by the counsel for the informant or by the AGA, this bail application would be cancelled.

¶26

(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. 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.

¶27

(iii) 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.

¶28

(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.may be issued and if 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.

¶29

(v) 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.

¶30

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶31

18. List this case on 21.04.2025 within top 10 cases. The matter may be taken immediately after lunch.

¶32

19. On the next date, considering the conduct of the applicant and the submissions of learned counsel for the informant and learned Government Advocate, this bail application may be decided finally.

¶33

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶34

Order Date :- 21.2.2025 (Manoj K.)

¶35

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhakar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Churamani Joshi (Retd. Company Commandar , Pno - 821040096) vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Pradeep Bot vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Santosh @ Santosh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamlesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mathiazhgan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.