Akash Pandey vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 2486 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Akash Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 24 July, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121973
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17592 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Akash Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Dubey,Saroj Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2025, under Sections 190, 191(1), 191(3), 109, 110, 352, 288 B.N.S., Police Station- Karchhana, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The wheat crop in the field of the informant was already harvested on 1.4.2025 and the applicant alongwith other accused persons had created a dispute between 09:00-10:00 a.m. and the matter was reported at the police station the same day. The police had intervened and the matter was settled. The applicant alongwith other accused persons armed with Bombs, illegal arms etc. came to the tube-well of the informant and started hurling abuses at them and thereupon assaulted them between 01:00-01:30 p.m. Several villagers came there but did not intervene.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. There are two injured persons from the side of the informant and the injuries sustained by one of them is grievous in nature as he had sustained fracture of rib cage.

9. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that as per the entry register of the PHC concerned, the two injured were admitted but there is medical examination of only one injured person. The other injured person has been examined later on.

10. On 7.4.2025, the doctor concerned has stated that he could not prepare the medical examination report of injured Ashish Kumar Pandey and the Investigating Officer may collect it after 08-10 days, as such, the injury report was collected by the Investigating Officer on 25.4.2025, which indicates that it has been forged.

11. It was a free-fight between two parties and the FIR was instituted from the side of applicant itself regarding the same incident of 1.4.2025 at about 01:30 p.m. The said FIR was registered at the police station on 10.4.2025 as the applicant had come to the police station and was kept there for two days and he was arrested on 3.4.2025 and thereupon he was medically examined.

12. Two persons from the side of applicant have also sustained injuries including the applicant. The said injury reports have been filed as Annexure-13 to the affidavit filed with bail application. The injury reports of Sagar Pandey and Akash Pandey (applicant) indicate 05-06 injuries respectively. There is no explanation of the injuries sustained by the applicant.

13. There being cross-version at this point of time it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one.

14. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. No particular overt act has been assigned to the applicant.

15. Much reliance has been placed on the paragraphs 8 & 22 in the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30026 of 2024 (Monu @ Akash vs. State of UP). The relevant paragraphs 8 & 22 of the said judgment are as follows:

"8. It is a cross case as such at this point of time it cannot be ascertained as to which party is aggressor one although, the FIR from the side of the applicant could not be instituted and it was lodged after filing of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Case Crime No.133 of 2024.

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the cross-version and the fact that seven persons from the side of the informant and four persons from the side of the applicant had sustained injuries and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed."

16. Reliance has also been placed on the paragraphs 4 & 5 in the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Ananta Kathod Pawa & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (1998) SCC (Cri) 199, whereby in the matter of cross-cases the accused persons were acquitted. The paragraphs 4 & 5 of the said judgment are as follows:

"4.On consideration of the evidence adduced during trial, the trial court held that the incident did not take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution witnesses. The trial court further held that having regard to the injuries found on the persons of the accused and the fact that one of them, namely, Haribhau succumbed to the injuries, it was clear that there was a free fight between the two groups, each one coming armed with weapons. The trial court observed that every prosecution witness tried to feign ignorance about the injuries sustained by some of the appellants and about the cause of death of Haribhau. It then referred to the judgment of this Court inLakshmi Singhv.State of Bihar[(1976) 4 SCC 394 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 671 : AIR 1976 SC 2263] and concluded as under:

"If these principles are applied to the facts of the present case, it can be said that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version as to how the incident started. It can equally be said that the prosecution witnesses are telling lies on material point."

5.In our considered view, with the above observations and findings, the trial court was not at all justified in convicting the appellants for rioting or for the other offences with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Equally untenable is the High Court's affirmation of the above convictions for the evidence on record clearly establishes the findings recorded by the trial court. Once the trial court found that there was a sudden and free fight between the two groups in which members of both the groups sustained injuries, the trial court should have held that there was no scope for convicting members of one of those groups under Section 147 or 148 IPC and for that matter for substantive offences with the aid of Section 149 IPC. In such a case, the accused persons would be liable for their individual acts and would not be liable vicariously. In the instant case, we are unable to convict the appellants for their individual acts also as no specific evidence was led by the prosecution in that regard."

17. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

18. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.4.2025. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

19. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant has committed the said offence. The FIR from the side of applicant has been instituted at a belated stage as it is delayed by about nine days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

20. The FIR instituted from the side of informant is prompt as it was instituted about seven hours after the incident.

21. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the informant on the paragraphs 4 & 5 in the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in The State of Jharkhand vs. Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta, arising out of SLP (Crl) No.10810 of 2023. The paragraphs 4 & 5 of the said judgment are as follows:

"4. The reasons that persuaded the High Court for granting bail to the respondent have been stated in paragraph-4 of the of the impugned order reads, thus:-

"4. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. Further, it has been submitted that no overt act has been alleged against this applicant. Investigation is complete. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made."

5. When the offences alleged, inter alia, includes one under Section 307, IPC and the accused concerned is so arraigned with the aid of Section 149, IPC, such submissions, reflected in paragraph or the mere factum of completion of investigation by itself, cannot be the reason(s) for grant of bail without due consideration of the relevant aspects. At any rate, mere claim of innocence or undertaking to participate in the trial or contention of absence of specific allegation of any overt act cannot, in such circumstances, be assigned as reasons for grant of bail in a case of serious nature. We are of the considered view that in such circumstances, impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the High Court in B.A. No.12508 of 2022 stands set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The application which culminated in the impugned order is restored into the file in its original number to facilitate such consideration. We make it clear that we have not made any observation touching the merits."

22. Reliance has also been placed on the paragraphs 10 & 11 in the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Rajeev Kishor Gutam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., arising from SLP (Crl.) No.15587 of 2024. The paragraphs 10 & 11 of the said judgment are as follows:

"10. From a perusal of the FIR and the postmortem report, it is evident that the deceased died due to a head injury followed by a group assault. We find that the High Court erred in holding that the allegations against the accused were general or omnibus in nature.

11. The order of the High Court does not disclose any reasoning for granting anticipatory bail in a matter involving serious offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The impugned order is cryptic and lacking in judicial analysis. In cases involving serious offences, the grant of anticipatory bail in such a mechanical manner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside."

CONCLUSION:

23. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the informant do not carry any force as they are not applicable to the instant case.

24. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

25. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

26. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

27. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

28. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

29. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that there is a cross-case to the instant case and the FIR being delayed by more than seven hours coupled by the fact that injuries have been sustained by two persons each on both sides, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

31. Let the applicant- Akash Pandey involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

32. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

33. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 24.7.2025

Vikas

(Justice Krishan Pahal)