Allahabad High Court
Ram Naresh Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22282
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3293 of 2025
Applicant :- Ram Naresh Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Mishra,Priyanshu Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.
First Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.45 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, Mankapur, District Gonda.
As per contents of first information report which has been lodged by one Badloo levelling allegation that on the basis of a forged power of attorney, one Ram Kumar had executed a sale deed on 30.09.2021. The persons nominated in F.I.R. are alleged beneficiaries of said illegal transaction.
It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that applicant's name is not indicated either in first information report or even in charge sheet and has come to light after seventeen months of filing of partial charge sheet.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that aforesaid amount in fact was credited in his account by one of the accused on account of previous loan having been extended by applicant and that applicant in fact is not a recipient or beneficiary of alleged illegal transaction. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history who is 72 years of old person and is under incarceration since 6th February, 2025. It is also submitted that an unnecessary criminal colour is being given to a purely civil dispute. It is further submitted that co-accused Sanjay Kumar Pandey has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 349 of 2025.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail with submission that credit of Rs.1,00,000/- into account of applicant clearly indicates his complicity in the issue as a beneficiary. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to further evidence being collected during investigation, it appears that applicant is not named either in first information report or even in charge sheet and his name has come to light during investigation as a recipient of a portion of money received on account of sale deed being executed. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history as indicated herein above. Co-accused Sanjay Kumar Pandey has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Ram Naresh Pandey involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
Order Date :- 21.4.2025
prabhat
