Allahabad High Court
Hanuman Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. ... on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2187 of 2022
Applicant :- Hanuman Pandey And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nadeem Murtaza,Pranshu Agrawal,Tushar Mittal
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.05/2022 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 364, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Chowk, district Lucknow.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as also Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for private respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per the prosecution case, first information report was lodged on 8.1.2022 on the basis of written report of the informant alleging that on 7.1.2022, he went to see Rumi Gate on his car along with his friend Vikas Sharma at about 9.15p.m.. The co-accused persons Capt. Sandeep Babu, Kashmir, Vivek Mishra, Shalil Awasth and Krishna Kant Yadav came and took the informant in their white Scorpio car. They abused him and shouted that the informant has expelled them from job and started beating him, and forcibly abducted him in their car. They also called Union leader Sharad Yadav, Susheel Pandey (applicant No.2) and applicant No.1. After some time, there was traffic jam and taking advantage thereof, the informant some how escaped. It is further alleged that all the accused persons are employee of GVK-EMRI and have been expelled by the informant as they were on strike.
It is next submitted by the applicants' counsel that the applicants have no criminal antecedent. The informant is HR Head of the company. The co-accused Captain Sandeep Babu, Kashmir and Vivek Mishra have been granted bail by the trial court and the main accused Shalil Awasth is still in jail. The investigation against the applicants is pending.
It is next submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the only allegations against these two applicants is that they were in conversation on phone with the co-accused persons. No overt-act has been attributed to them. It is further submitted that the informant has a criminal history of five cases.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in CD 11 in the statement of Shalil Awasthi, it has come that it was these two applicants who had directed on phone the co-accused persons who were in the car to bring the abductee in the park.
Learned counsel for the applicants, rebutting the submission raised by learned counsel for the complainant submits that this statement of the co-accused which has been given in police custody is of no relevance.
Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that the applicants shall cooperate in the investigation.
Considering the above aspects of the matter, perusal of the record, the applicants are the dismissed employees of the company, time lag between the alleged act of abduction and rescue of the informant on his own efforts, the enmity between the informant and the company executive as also the fact that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and the injured has received simple injury, as well as the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till filing of the police report, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants Hanuman Pandey and Susheel Pandey shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation and they will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicants will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.
The application is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.1.2023
kkb/
