Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7795 of 2024

Pawan Kumar

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : P.C.Maurya, Umesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 17

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶7

Heard Sri P.C. Maurya, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This third application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 357/2019, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi.

¶9

The first application No. 411/2020 was rejected on 06.04.2023 and second application No. 10043/2023 was dismissed by means of an order dated 09.08.2023 as not pressed. The third application has been moved on the ground the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.07.2019, till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined and there are serious discrepancies in their statements. The eye witness Janki has stated in her examination-in-chief that she had seen the applicant Pawan Kumar on the date of the incident and he is a resident of Chandpur. However, during her crossexamination conducted on the same date, she has stated that

¶10

BAIL No. 7795 of 2024

¶11

2

¶12

nobody had taken the victim in her presence. Her corssexamination continued on the following day i.e. 24.05.2022 when she again stated that she recognizes Pawan Kumar, resident of Village Tikar and she had seen him taking the victim with him.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid statement of eye witness Janki raises serious doubt against the prosecution case as firstly she stated in her cross examination on 05.04.2022 that she has not seen anyone taking the victim and secondly on 24.05.2022, she stated that she had seen Pawan Kumar r/o Village Tikar taking the victim with him whereas the applicant Pawan Kumar is resident of Village Chanpur.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi v. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation: Criminal Appeal No. 693/2021 decided on 27.07.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to a person accused on a serious and heinous offence, on the ground that he was languishing in jail for more than eight years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time during pendency of the trial.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.07.2019, statements of eye witnesses have already been recorded and an eye witness has stated about the involvement of Pawan Kumar resident of Village Tikar whereas the applicant is Pawan Kumar resident of village Chandpur, I am of the view that the application is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Pawan Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties

¶18

BAIL No. 7795 of 2024

¶19

3

¶20

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶23

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶24

January 12, 2026 Pradeep/-

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶26

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

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nirmala Devi vs Civil Judge Junior Division Upper Khand Dist. Amethi and 5 Others

Smt. Neelam Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Om Security and cleaning services Thru. Prop. Om Kumar vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow Thru. M.D. and Anr.

Kavit Kumar Singh @ Kavit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

M/s Sumerganj and Company through proprietor Madan Mohan Mishra vs Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Jila Panchayat, Sitapur and Anr.

Mohammad Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others