Nagesh Pandey vs State Of U.P.
2019 Latest Caselaw 5152 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22615 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Nagesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Singh,Thakur Azad Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri Piyush Pandey and Sri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel jointly filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, is taken on record.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged against 3 persons including the applicant. In FIR it has been mentioned that on the exhortation of co-accused Krishnaji Pandey @ Subedar the applicant caught hold the deceased and co-accused Nihal Pandey fired upon the deceased due to which he died. It has further been submitted that in postmortem report one fire arm entry wound and one abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on right back of elbow has been found to the deceased and the cause of death of the deceased has been shown haemorrhage shock due to ante mortem fire arm injury. It has further been submitted that applicant had not caused any injury to the deceased. Only the role of catching hold to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Nihal Pandey. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 3.12.2018.

Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the FIR. In FIR it has been mentioned that applicant caught hold the deceased and co-accused Nihal Pandey fired upon the deceased due to which he died. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Nagesh Pandey involved in Case Crime No. 596 of 2018, under section 302, 34, 120B IPC, P.S. Meja, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.

3. He shall 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 :- 29.5.2019

Masarrat