Allahabad High Court
Gyaneshwar Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180746
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38461 of 2023
Applicant :- Gyaneshwar Kumar Pandey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Gyaneshwar Kumar Pandey, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 84 of 2023, under sections 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Mail, District Deoria.
4. The FIR of the present was lodged on 17.04.2023 by Kuldeep Singh against unknown person alleging therein that his Chacha aged about 64 years was found lying dead having injuries on his face and head at Turtipar railway station on 16.04.2023. The death has been caused by bricks and stones. He has identified his chacha from the photograph. He has been murdered by unknown persons.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is further argued that the applicant has been made as an accused in the present matter on the basis of statement of co-accused Rajesh Mishra. It is argued that the prosecution has come up with the motive against the applicant which is that in the year 1985 the father of the applicant was murdered in which Devendra, Feku and Bharat were the accused and Devendra and Feku were convicted, whereas, Bharat had died during trial. It is stated by the prosecution that Vinay Pandey told the applicant that the deceased Brijesh Kumar was also involved in the said matter as such the applicant had a motive to commit the aforesaid incident. It is argued that the same is totally false and concocted as the deceased had no role in the said murder. It is argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant in the present case. It is further argued that the presence case is a case of circumstantial evidence in which there is no eye witness. While placing para 32 of the affidavit, it is argued that the applicant was previously involved in one other criminal case in which he has been acquitted by the trial court, the copy of the judgment has been placed as Annexure No. 14 to the affidavit in support of the bail application. It is argued that the charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted. The applicant as of now is having no criminal history as stated in para 33 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 20.04.2023.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The involvement of the applicant in the present case appears on the basis of suspicion. The motive as is being shown against the applicant does not in any manner goes to show the implication of the applicant in the same.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
9. Let the applicant-Gyaneshwar Kumar Pandey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
11. The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2023
K.K. Maurya
(Samit Gopal,J.)
