Bipin Pandey @ Ajay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 44 of 2026

Bipin Pandey @ Ajay

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Anupam Bajpai, Puneet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.201 of 2024 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Ibrahimpur, district Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. He is not named in the first information report. He has no relation with the incident.

¶12

4Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel.

¶13

5. I have considered the submission and perused the record.

¶14

From perusal of the record, it appears that the name of the accused applicant has surfaced during investigation. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the applicant in connivance with the co-accused persons on the pretext of providing job on the post of District Supervisor in NCRT department have received Rs.2,60,000/- by way of Google Pay and Rs.1,50,000/- through cheque and fake interview board was constituted. Interview of the complainant was conducted and the complainant was

¶15

NABAIL No. 44 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

given a forged identity card and appointment letter.

¶18

6.While rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, the trial court has made following observation(s) :

¶19

"मैंने अिग्रम जमानत प्राथर्ना-पत्र पर आवेदक / अिभयुक्त के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता एवं िवद्वान िजला शासकीय अिधवक्ता, फौजदारी को सुना तथा पत्रावली का सम्यक् पिरशीलन िकया। अिग्रम जमानत प्राथर्नापत्र की सुनवाई के समय अिभयोजन पक्ष की तरफ से

¶20

केसडायरी के प्रासंिगक पचेर् व अन्य अिभयोजन प्रपत्रो को प्रस्तुत िकया गया है। यद्यिप िक प्रकरण में आवेदक / अिभयुक्त नामजद अिभयुक्त नहीं है, उसका नाम दौरान िववेचना प्रकाश में आया है। आवेदक/अिभयुक्त पर आरोप है िक उसने सहअिभयुक्तगण के साथ िमलकर छलपूवर्क वादी मुकदमा को एन.सी.ई.आर.टी. िवभाग में िजला पयर्वेक्षक के पद पर नौकरी िदलाने के िलये कई िकस्तो में गूगल पे के माध्यम से मु०-2,60,000/रूपयें व चेक के माध्यम से मु०-1,50,000/- रूपये प्राप्त िकया और एक फजीर् इन्टरब्यू बोडर् बनाकर उसका साक्षात्कार भी कराया और उसे कूटरिचत व फजीर् पहचान पत्र व िनयुिक्त पत्र तैयार कर प्रदत्त िकया। जब वह िनयुिक्त के िलये गया, तब उसे जानकारी हुई िक आवेदक /अिभयुक्त द्वारा िदया ऐ िवभाग प्रपत्र कूटरिचत व फजीर् है। वादी मुकदमा द्वारा जब आवेदक / अिभयुक्त से अपना रूपया शाखपर मांग गया, तो उसे फजीर् मुकदमो में फंसाने व जान से मारने की धमकी दी गयी। इस व्याकार प्रकरण में गंभीर प्रकृित का अपराध कािरत िकया जाना प्रथम दृष्टया परिलिक्षत होता है। स्वत प्रकरण में िववेचना अभी प्रचिलत है तथा थाने से प्राप्त आख्या के अनुसार ०५० आवेदक / अिभयुक्त द्वारा िववेचना में सहयोग नहीं िकया जा रहा है और उसके िवरुद्ध धारा 82 द०प्र०सं० की कायर्वाही अमल में लायी गयो है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में सहअिभयुक्तगण की जमानत पूवर् में िनरस्त की जा चुकी है। आवेदक / अिभयुक्त की भूिमका सहअिभयुक्त से इतर नहीं बतायी गयी है।"

¶21

6.On due consideration to the submission advanced as well as perusal of the record, it cannot be said that it is a case of false implication. The offence is serious. Offence under section 467 I.P.C. is punishable with life. Prima facie, there appears to be electronic evidence indicोating complicity of the accused persons, including the applicant. Custodial interrogation is required in the case. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶22

7.The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶23

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶24

January 13, 2026 kkb/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bipin Pandey @ Ajay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Pandey @ Ajay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Narain and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange Rural Water Supply Minor Irrigat. Deptt. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin./ Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Shashank Mishra (S.I. , PNO-194071594) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Abdullah vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Kaptan Singh @ Bhupendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Indramani Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.