Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shree Prakash Singh, J.
Ranjeet Pandey – Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lucknow – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12124 of 2024
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - Bail application - Accused alleged to have misappropriated Rs. 10,35,000/- without documentary evidence - Accused claimed innocence and sought bail citing lack of evidence and parity with co-accused granted bail - Court noted absence of independent witnesses and explained criminal history of the applicant. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
(B) Bail - Conditions set forth for bail included non-tampering with evidence, presence in court on fixed dates, and undertaking not to seek adjournments - Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, accused of financial fraud, claimed innocence and argued that the allegations stemmed from a dispute, with no evidence of criminal intent. He has been in custody since 31.8.2024.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's claim of being implicated without evidence warranted bail, considering his criminal history and the absence of witnesses.
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence against the applicant and whether bail should be granted given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of strong evidence and the applicant's willingness to cooperate justified granting bail, while ensuring conditions to prevent misuse.
Result: Bail granted subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Prakash Singh, J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 61 of 2023, under sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC , P.S.- Indira Nagar, District - Lucknow.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the only allegation against the applicant is that on the instance of him, the complainant has given some amount to Virender Kumar/co-accused who later on died. He added that there is no documentary proof with respect to any amount given to the present applicant and further submits that there was some dispute in between the parties which is being given colour of criminality and there was no criminal intent to commit any offence as is alleged in the first information report. He added that the applicant has two cases criminal history which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.8.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Further submitted that the identically situated co-accused namely, Krishna Kumar Singh @ Guru, has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 18-10-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10935 of 2024 and the applicant is seeking parity of the same.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that Rs. 10,35,000/- has been in- credited in the account of the present applicant and he has misappropriated the same and has committed cheat & fraud as such, he is not entitled for any relief.
6. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has supported the contentions of counsel for the complainant, but, he could not dispute the fact that the identically situated co-accused named above, has already been enlarged on bail by this court.
7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that an amount of Rs. 10,35,000/- was given by the complainant to one Virendra Kumar (dead) though, prima facie there is no documentary evidence of the same. This Court has taken note of fact that there is no independent eye witness with respect to the action of the present applicant, while directing the complainant to give amount to one Virender Kumar. This Court has also noticed the fact that there are two cases criminal history against the applicant which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 31.8.2024 coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.
9. Let the applicant-Ranjeet Pandey, involved in the aforementioned 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:-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(2) 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 ar
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the applicant and his commitment to cooperate with trial proceedings.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and insufficient evidence against him, emphasizing the rights under Article 21.
The court granted bail based on the principle of parity, lack of prior criminal record, and the applicant's undertaking to cooperate with the trial.
The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty under Article 21, granting bail based on the victim's statement undermining the prosecution's case.
Bail granted based on duration of custody, claimed false implication, and charge sheet submission.
Point of law: Rioting - Bail granted - Nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indi....
Bail is a right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to demonstrate the necessity of continued detention.
The court may grant bail based on the nature of allegations, period of custody, and the circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
