Deepak Dwivedi @ Tinku Pandit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2549 of 2026

Versus Deepak Dwivedi @ Tinku Pandit		.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Yadav, Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.	Kumar Gupta, Ashish Chaurasia	Akash Kumar
Court No.- 13

¶4

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 87 of 2006, under Section 302 I.P.C, Police Station Mahanagar, DistrictLucknow is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 05.04.2006 has been registered under Section 302 I.P.C against some unknown persons, alleging therein that the son of the informant was killed by some unknown persons on 04.04.2006 at around 8:30 p.m.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the name of the applicant has surfaced for the first time in the confessional statement of the co-accused, namely Saurabh alias Abhas Sonkar, who was arrested by the police after receiving information from a Mukhbir Khas that he was involved in the murder of the son of the informant. After his arrest, the co-accused Saurabh alias Abhas Sonkar took the name of the applicant and except that there is no other material or evidence available against the applicant.

¶9

It is further submitted that as there was no material or evidence against the applicant and his name had surfaced only in the confessional statement of the co-accused, the applicant was granted bail by order dated 16.06.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 504 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 87 of 2006. The applicant attended the proceedings of the trial till the year 2017. Thereafter, he could not attend the proceedings as he had gone out of town for the purpose of earning livelihood for his family and the dates were not informed to him by his counsel. When he came to know

¶10

BAIL No. 2549 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

about the issuance of the non-bailable warrant against him, the applicant surrendered before the court on 04.12.2025 and his bail application was rejected on 17.02.2026.

¶13

It is further submitted that the co-accused Saurabh, who in his confessional statement had stated that he had fired the gunshot at the son of the informant, has been acquitted in the trial vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2023, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure No. 8 to the paper book.

¶14

Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 04.12.2025. He has stated on affidavit before this Court that he will fully cooperate in the trial proceedings and will appear before the court on the dates fixed and will not abscond from the proceedings.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions received, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the applicant has violated the conditions of the bail which was granted to him in the year 2006 by not attending the proceedings of the court from the year 2017 till the year 2025.

¶16

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., it is true that the applicant did not attend the proceedings of the trial for a long period. However, it is also to be considered that the applicant had attended the proceedings from the year 2006 till the year 2017. In the present case, the applicant has stated on oath that he will attend the proceedings of the trial on the dates fixed. It is also submitted that the coaccused Saurabh, who as per his own statement was the main accused, has been acquitted in the present case and the name of the applicant had surfaced only in the confessional statement of the co-accused, who has already been acquitted. Except for that, there is no other evidence against the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Deepak Dwivedi @ Tinku Pandit 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

BAIL No. 2549 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

April 9, 2026 DiVYa

¶32

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Deepak Dwivedi @ Tinku Pandit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Dwivedi @ Tinku Pandit 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

Similar cases

Sohan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Taslim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

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

Geeta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Vedika Pandey Alias Rangoli Alias Vedika Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another