Vinay Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 7345 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vinay Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 28 May, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91179  
 
Reserved On:- 23.05.2025  
 
  Delivered On:- 28.05.2025  
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33306 of 2024 
 
Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pandey 
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. 
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra 
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
 

1. Heard Sri Kedar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. There are allegations in the FIR dated 17.04.2023 against unknown accused that the dead body of the uncle of informant, Brijesh Kumar Singh, aged about 64 years was recovered on 16.04.2023 near Railway Station. He has been murdered by unknown accused.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the name of the applicant was disclosed by one, Rajesh Mishra, who was arrested on the information given by informer on 20.04.2023. The name of applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of Rajesh Mishra along with accused, Gyaneshwar Pandey. Two witnesses of last seen were also found by the police and their statements were recorded.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant has been implicated in this case falsely by the police only to work out the case. Co-accused, Gyaneshwar Kumar Pandey, has already been enlarged on bail by the court by following order :-

"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. "

5. The case of the applicant is similar to co- accused, Gyaneshwar Kumar Pandey. The applicant has no previous criminal history and is in jail since 20.04.2023.

6. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

7. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

8. Let the applicant, Vinay Kumar Pandey, involved in Case Crime No. 84 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Mail, District- Deoria, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) 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

(v) 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.

9. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 28.05.2025

Rohit