Ankit Pandey @ Goli Pandey @ Goldi Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1824 of 2026

¶3

Ankit Pandey @ Goli Pandey @ Goldi Pandey

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 13

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today in Court and the same is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶12

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 160 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 317(4), 317(2), 111(4) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya.

¶13

It is stated that on a single arrest, the applicant has been roped in three cases i.e. Case Crime No.160 of 2025 (present case), Case Crime No.254 of 2025 and 259 of 2025 by the police officers of the Police StationKotwali Bikapur, District-Ayodhya.

¶14

While pressing the application for bail, learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶15

It is further submitted that applicant has been released on bail in Case Crime No.254 of 2025, under Section 318(4), 319(2), 302(3) B.N.S., Police Station-Bikapur, District-Ayodhya by the competent Court of

¶16

BAIL No. 1824 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

jurisdiction namely Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No.3, Ayodhya/Faizabad on 11.09.2025.

¶19

It is further stated that according to the case of prosecution, the applicant withdrew money of the informant from the ATM of Central Bank of India situated at Bikapur, District Ayodhya.

¶20

It is stated that in every ATM, CCTV cameras are installed, however, there is no CCTV footage available with the prosecution to connect the applicant with the crime indicated in the F.I.R. in issue in connection to which the applicant is in jail since 06.08.2025.

¶21

It is stated that co-accused namely Shahrukh and Arbaz have already been enlarged on bail in the Case Crime No.160 of 2025 by the competent court of jurisdiction namely Additional District and Session Judge, Ayodhya vide order(s) dated 11.11.2025 and 13.02.2026 in Bail Application No(s). 1295 of 2025 and 134 of 2026, respectively. Copy of bail orders are annexed as Annexure No.8 to the bail application and Annexure No.SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed today in Court.

¶22

It is further stated that the applicant has explained his criminal history in paragrah-2 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicant is in judicial custody since 06.08.2025. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the

¶25

BAIL No. 1824 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR, the criminal history explained by the applicant in supplementary affidavit and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also that co-accused have already been released on bail as also chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶28

Let the applicant- Ankit Pandey @ Goli Pandey @ Goldi Pandey be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶31

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(v) The applicant 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.

¶34

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶35

(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶36

BAIL No. 1824 of 2026

¶37

4

¶38

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶39

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶40

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶41

Application is disposed of.

¶42

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶43

March 13, 2026

¶44

Arti/-

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Pandey @ Goli Pandey @ Goldi Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Pandey @ Goli Pandey @ Goldi Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Govt. 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

Similar cases

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

Smt. Ghausia Khan and Ors. vs Mohd. Wasiq Khan and Ors.

Anand Kumar Divedi vs Shri Anil Kumar, the Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko.

Pankaj @ Pankaj Chaurasiya vs Purnendra Mishra Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh

Uday Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

M/S Galaxy Press Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Managing Director Namely Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs Mr. Anunaya Jha Posted as District Magistrate Hardoi and 2 Others