Sunil Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10887

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 66 of 2025 Appellant :- Sunil Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Surya Narayan Mishra,Deepak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

It has been informed by learned AGA that the notice has already been served on the complainant of the present case. Photocopy of the information is annexed at Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit.

¶8

Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, therefore, the case is being finally decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No.2413/2024 arising out of Case Crime No.243/2024 under Sections 105 of BNS and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Motiganj, District- Gonda.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 13.10.2024. As per the prosecution case, deceased consumed liquor along with the named accused persons and thereafter, he was beaten by the appellant and other associates and thrown into the river. The FIR of case in question was lodged on the basis of information given by someone to the complainant. He has further submitted that ante-mortem injuiry report does not corroborate with the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant. During the course of investigation, statements of other witnesses were also recorded under Section 180 CrPC, in which, they categorically stated that deceased and all the accused persons consumed liquor all together, thereafter accidentally, the deceased fell into the river by himself and

¶12

died. He has further submitted that appellant does not have any other previous criminal history, charge sheet has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. He has further submitted that trial court failed to consider aforesaid aspects before rejecting the bail application, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of appellant but he does not dispute this fact that witnesses have stated in their statement that deceased along with all the accused persons consumed liquor, and thereafter, he accidentally fell into the river by himself and died.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, statements of witnesses as well as other relevant documents; it is evident from the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 180 CrPC that the deceased consumed liquor and accidentally fell into the river by himself and died. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda is hereby set aside.

¶16

Let the appellant- Sunil Pandey involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶17

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶18

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 V. Sinha

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Pandey 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

Anam Baby Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Neha Maurya Thru. Her Brother Pradeep Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Nikhil Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

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

Chhotakay @ Rakesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nishant Kumar Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko