Allahabad High Court
Santosh Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 17 March, 2021
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- BAIL No. - 2238 of 2021 Applicant :- Santosh Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Vineet Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
As per the prosecution case it is alleged that one Ram Asray Pandey @ Babban @ Dharmendra Mishra, Prakash Mishra, Pappu Mishra and Santosh Pandey and four unknown persons on 04.09.2019 at 6:30 P.M. came armed and surrounded the deceased and started indiscriminate firing, in the meantime, the informant reached on the spot they ran away from the motorcycle after seeing Rakesh Mishra, Virendra Mishra and several other persons from the village. The deceased was admitted in the District Hospital Gauriganj where from he was referred to Trauma Centre Lucknow where he scummed to death.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased Neeraj Pandey was a murder accused in case crime No. 638/2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., police station Munshiganj, District Amethi. It is further submitted that he was killed by some unknown persons, however, being the relative (jija) of Pankaj Mishra and Pappu Mishra, the present applicant has been falsely implicated.
It is next submitted that the eye witness namely Virendra Mishra in his statement recorded on 14.11.2019 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not named the present applicant. The other eye witness namely Rakesh Mishra in his statement recorded on the same date i.e. 14.11.2019 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has again not taken the name of the applicant, neither they have made any allegation whatsoever as has been made by two eye witnesses in the first information report.
It is further submitted that in the inquest, the complainant was present and still he has not taken the name of the present applicant, however, in the re-statement Virendra Mishra while giving statement after 12 days i.e. on 26.11.2019 has also assigned the general role to the present applicant.
It is further submitted that Virendra Mishra while taking the name of the applicant in his restatement has also taken the name of co-accused Anil Kumar @ Dabang. The co-accused Anil Kumar @ Dabang has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2021 passed in bail No. 8701/2020. Learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with the order of the co-accused.
The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.10.2019 without having any criminal history.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and submits that the co-accused namely Anil Kumar @ Dabang is not named in the F.I.R., therefore, no case of parity is made out.
Considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.10.2019 without having any criminal history and the eye witnesses namely Virendra Mishra and Rakesh Mishra in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not taken the name of the applicant and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Santosh Pandey, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 345/2019, under Sections 147/148/149/302/34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Amethi, District - Amethi, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021 R.C.