Santosh Pandey @ D.M. vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 388 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 10244 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- Santosh Pandey @ D.M.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Salik Ram Yadav,Vinod Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned  A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. of the alleged incident has been lodged against unknown person. The statement of complainant Brijesh Kumar was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the next day of the alleged incident, in which he has stated that applicant and other co-accused person threatened him due to which he could not named the applicant and other co-accused in the F.I.R. The above statement of complainant is not probable and believable. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The applicant had not caused any injury to the deceased. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It has further been submitted that the applicant has not provided any liquor to the deceased and he has no concern with the alleged incident. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 26.07.2015.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the complainant on the next day of F.I.R. in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The applicant and other co-accused have committed murder of the deceased, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Santosh Pandey @ D.M. involved in Case Crime No.197 of 2015, Under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. & 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kurwar, District Sultanpur, 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:

1.   The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 

2.   The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial.

3.   The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to  cancel the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 14.3.2016

Jitendra