Gyanendra Pandey @ Gyani Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2485 of 2026

¶3

Gyanendra Pandey @ Gyani Pandey

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.	Home Lko.			.....O	pposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manish Kumar	Vaish, Ojha	Pritika	Bhasin,	Sanat
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Shukla,	Mohit Shivam	Singh, Srivastav	Rahul a	Kumar

¶6

Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0298 of 2025, under sections 105 of the BNS (old Section 304 IPC), Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District- Balrampur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.2025, an FIR has been lodged under Sections 105 of BNS, 2023 (old Sections 304 IPC) against the applicant alleging therein that informant had received a phone call that day at 6.30 A.M. from Manoj Singh and he told him that brother of informant namely Shareef was caught while committing theft and from behind the voice of informant's brother was coming that don't beat me and hand over him to Police, thereafter the phone call was disconnected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced at the time of recording of statement of alleged eye witness namely Parasnath on 31.10.2025 whereas prior to that affidavits of alleged eye-witness dated 30.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 were forwarded by the informant to the Police in which the alleged eye-witness had not taken the name of applicant.

¶12

It is further submitted that from perusal of affidavits and the statements of alleged eye-witness wherein he has stated that deceased was badly beaten by lathi and danda whereas no injury of lathi and danda has been found on body of deceased. There are ten injuries shown on the body of deceased and all

¶13

BAIL No. 2485 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

injuries are multiple abrasions and one of them is old one, so by abrasions, how one could die so it makes the story of alleged eye-witness doubtful.

¶16

It is further submitted that how the alleged eye-witness namely Parasnath has been introduced by informant, has also not been disclosed.

¶17

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 15.02.2026.

¶18

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of counter affidavit filed has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but is unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and from the statement of eye witness, prima-facie, it appears that applicant is not named in the FIR; name of applicant has come into light for the first time in the statement of alleged eye-witness recorded on 31.10.2025 whereas prior to that informant forwarded the affidavits of alleged eye-witness dated 30.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 to the Police in which the alleged eye-witness had not taken the name of anyone including the applicant except the name of Manoj Singh (named accused person); postmortem report shows 10 injuries of multiple abrasions on the body of deceased that too on non vital parts of body and one of them is an old injury and the cause of death shown is septic shock i.e. as informed by both the counsel is septicemia and how a person could die immediately with the injuries of abrasions, so the statement of alleged eye-witness, prima-facie, does not corroborate with the medical report; thus, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Gyanendra Pandey @ Gyani Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

¶27

BAIL No. 2485 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

May 13, 2026 Ashish

¶36

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gyanendra Pandey @ Gyani Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra Pandey @ Gyani Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Devendra Singh @ Shiva Thakur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Sudheer Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 4 Others

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

Sudhakar Kumar Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Shyam Pyare @ Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.