Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34716

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 228 of 2025

Appellant :- Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A.for opposite party No.1-State.

¶7

As per office report dated 19th February, 2025, notice has been served upon opposite party No.2 who has not put in appearance.

¶8

Supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of State and supplementary affidavit on behalf of appellant are taken on record.

¶9

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 8.1.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sitapur rejecting the bail application No. 883 of 2024 of the appellant in case crime No. 463 of 2024 under Sections 109, 3(5) BNS & under Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act of P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶10

As per contents of F.I.R. in which applicant is unnamed, incident is said to have taken place on 4th September, 2024 at about 6.30 P.M. when persons nominated in the F.I.R. allegedly opened fire upon informant resulting in bullet wound in his right hand with the second bullet touching upon his chest.

¶11

It is submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that appellant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor is there any allegation levelled against him and his name has been introduced subsequently in the statement of informant recorded under Section 180 BNSS. It is submitted that statements of informant recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS are in complete variance with the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. with the name of person who allegedly fired upon him completely changed. It is further submitted that as per medical report, there was no injury on the chest of informant and there is only one bullet wound present on the lower right arm. It is therefore submitted that the injury suffered can not be relatable to Section 109 BNS.

¶12

It is further submitted that one previous criminal history has already been explained and appellant is under incarceration since 23rd December, 2024.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the informant has clearly nominated the appellant as the person who fired upon him resulting in gun shot wound. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of appellant has been explained.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears that there is serious contradiction in the statement of informant recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS with the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. The aspect of injuries suffered in right arm of the informant would also be required to be considered in the light of Section 109 BNS. Previous criminal history has already been explained while the appellant is under incarceration since 23rd December, 2024 . The trial is only at the inception.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for parties, without commenting upon merits, it appears that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of the above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly appeal is allowed and the order dated 23rd December, 2024 is set aside.

¶16

Let appellant Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) The appellant 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

(v) The appellant 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

(vi) In case, the appellant 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

Order Date :- 5.6.2025 prabhat

¶24

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

Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Parasnath Alias Parasnath Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Naresh Soni and 3 Others Vs Fourth Apar Civil Judge Junior Division Gonda and 5 Others

Rama Shanker Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Revenue Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Urmila vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Narendra Bhargav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others