Allahabad High Court

Sudhakar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home on 18 September, 2025

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:57560
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4137 of 2024   
 
   Sudhakar Pandey    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Shailendra Singh Rajawat, Purnima Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Anuj Pandey, Ashish Kumar Singh   
 
     
 
  
 
Court No. - 12 
 

 
    
 
  
 
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that Gaurav Singh and Vinod Kumar were General Secretary of Lucknow University and residing in Flat No.R 86 Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The ex student of Lucknow University Jagdamba Singh alias Jai singh was envious of the political progress of Vinod and threatened that he will destroy his political career. The informant told this to Vinod. It is further alleged that as per plan, Jagdamba Singh came at about 11.00p.m. at his room along with two known persons Ashwani Upadhyay and Vipin Singh. They started taking meal. All of a sudden, Jagdamba Singh after being annoyed left the meal and went. Vinod also went after him. As soon as Vinod, Gaurav Singh and Jagdamba Singh reached at flat No.B-1, from the bushes, companion of Jagdamba Singh, Anshu Dixit and Sudhakar resident of Lakhimpur Kheri who were seen in light of electric and identified came. Jagdamba exhorted to kill. All the three started incriminate firing. Gaurav Singh and Vinod fell on the spot after sustaining bullet injury. It was around 12 to 12.30 hours in the night. Alarm was raised. The informant tried to rescue. Jagdamba threatened to kill in case he moves forward and ran away.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication as also a case of mistaken identify. It is further submitted that in the site plan, the investigating officer has not shown presence of any independent witnesses such as Aseem Bajpai. The alleged eye-witness has not been produced by the prosecution during trial. Both the post mortem reports dated 11.12.2007 reveal multiple firearm injuries on the deceased Gaurav Singh and Vinod Kumar Tripathi, however, no recovery of fire arm or any incriminating material has been found. No test identification parade has been conducted by the investigating officer.

The co-accused Jagdamba and Anshu Dixit have been subsequently killed in police encounter on 1.2.2008 and in 2022 respectively. It is submitted that due to apprehension of threat to his life, the applicant and Anshu Dixit left for Bihar in 2008 where they themselves got arrested in case crime No.57 of 2008 under sections 25/27 Arms Act on 1.8.2008. Thereafter, case crime No.72 of 2008 under sections 199, 200, 205, 419 I.P.C. was registered. The maximum punishment in both the cases is three years. During this period proceedings under sections 82/83 CrPC were undertaken by the police without any court order. On B warrant the applicant was brought from Bihar jail in the year 2009 where he was booked in case crime No.57 of 2008 under sections 23(1-B), 26/35 of Arms Act on 1.8.2008 and case crime No.72 of 2008 under sections 199, 200, 205 and 419 I.P.C.

On 28.9.2010 while being taken to court from jail, the applicant escaped after an alleged staged encounter attempt on Daliganj Bridge, resulting in lodging of first information report in case crime No.445 of 2010 under section 224 I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj. The applicant was enlarged on bail by the trial court on 3.4.2019 in the aforesaid case.

It is submitted that two co-accused have already been encountered by the police therefore, in order to save his life from such malicious and brutal killing, the applicant escaped, however, later, on his own, surrendered on 23.8.2018.

It is submitted that all the fact witnesses have been examined. Even the investigating officer has also been examined. There is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence. Still 12 witnesses are left to be examined. The applicant has already incarcerated for more than seven years in jail.

The applicant's counsel has drawn attention of the court towards the statement of P.W.4 investigating officer before the trial court wherein he has admitted that he is not aware about the father's name of the applicant. Address of the applicant was not told to him by anybody. There was no court orders although proceedings under sections 82/83 CrPC have been executed.

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

4.Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel have vehemently opposed the bail and submitted that it is a brutal murder of two persons. The role assigned to the accused applicant is of firing along with two other co-accused persons. No case for bail is made out. The applicant has already absconded once in 2010, therefore, for all the more reason the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5.On a query being made, learned Addl. Government Advocate has admitted that the co-accused Jagdamba was killed in police encounter on 1.2.2008. However, as regards Anshu Dixit, he is not sure as to whether he was killed in police encounter.

Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that while considering bail application, it has to be taken note of that the accused may not misuse liberty. He submits that the accused has already absconded for 8 years and proceedings under sections 82 and 83 CrPC have also been initiated against him.

6.In regard to threat perception, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the trial court on a number of dates has directed the senior police authorities to provide necessary protection to the witnesses so that they may appear in the court during the course of trial. It is submitted that on 1.12.2018, 15.4.2019, 1.7.2019, 29.11.2023 and 10.10.2024, the trial court has directed the police to provide complete protection to the complainant and the witnesses and take legal action against the accused.

He further states that the co-accused Anshu Dixit has been killed inside jail in a gang war. He also submitted that the applicant has a checkered history of criminal cases which have been admitted by the applicant's counsel in para 16 of the compilation and written submission which is on record.

7.Rebutting this, applicant's counsel submits that the prosecution has sought to portray the applicant as a habitual offender by citing cases which either do not exist, have ended in final reports, or in which unrelated persons were convicted. The applicant has been falsely implicated.

8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has explained the criminal history, the two co-accused Anshu Dixit and Jagdamba, referred to above, have been murdered, the accused applicant is in jail since more than seven years, all the fact witnesses have been examined, even the investigating officer has also been examined and there is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence, still 12 witnesses are left to be examined, judgment of Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra and another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

9.Let the applicant Sudhakar Pandey, involved in Case Crime No.785 of 2007 under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) 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.

(v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

(vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).