Court No. - 38

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S

438 CR.P.C. No. - 7872 of 2020

Applicant :- Aniruddha Pandey

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Ratan Shukla,Indra Kumar

Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Kumar,Prabhash Pandey

with

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S

438 CR.P.C. No. - 7675 of 2020

Applicant :- Prakash Pandey

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Kant Shukla,Renu Singh,Vinod Prakash

Srivastava (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Kumar,Neeraj Kumar

Chaurasia,Prem Shanker Mishra

and

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S

438 CR.P.C. No. - 8321 of 2020

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Pandey And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Ratan Shukla,Indra Kumar

Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Kumar,Prem Shanker

Mishra,P.S.Misra

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Three anticipatory bail applications have been filed

arising from Case Crime No.79 of 2020 under Sections-

147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 and 308 IPC, Police

Station-Oonj, District-Bhadohi.

Anticipatory Bail

application no. 7872 of 2020 has been filed by Aniruddha

Pandey; Anticipatory Bail application no.7675 of 2020 has

been filed by Prakash Pandey and Anticipatory Bail

application no. 8321 of 2020 has been filed by Arun

Kumar Pandey, Pratham Pandey & Prashant. All the

applicants had been granted interim anticipatory bail by

earlier orders passed on their respective applications.

Heard Shri. V.P. Srivastava, Sr. Advocate, Shri. I.K.

Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Syed

Murtaza Ali, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned

counsel for the informant.

2. Relevant to the present applications, it may be noted,

other than two NCR registered against Arun Kumar

Pandey and one each against Aniruddha Pandey and

Pratham Pandey, there is no criminal history cited against

the applicants. The applicants and the informant party are

collaterals and also neighbours. There is also a civil

dispute pending between the parties from before - being

Original Suit No.56 of 2019 filed by Israji Devi and

Santosh Kumar (informant party) against Laldhar Pandey,

Karma Devi and Kripa Shankar (applicant party). Santosh

Kumar - the plaintiff in the suit is the main injured party in

the present case.

3. In that background FIR allegations have emerged

describing an incident that took place on 19.07.2020

wherein, according to the FIR, Arun Kumar Pandey and

Pratham Pandey assaulted Santosh Kumar with a spade

and 'lathi' resulting in head injury suffered by the latter. In

support thereof reference has been made to the injury

report as also report of the CT-scan disclosing fracture on

the parietal bone on the right side and haemorrhage

suffered. Other injuries are also claimed to have been

suffered by Santosh Kumar and Reshma. However, the

injuries of Reshma are minor. In the context of these

injuries, the FIR allegations have emerged against all the

applicants (except Aniruddha Pandey) as also certain

ladies of the house namely Malti Pandey, Gamla

Pandey, Rekha Pandey, Sargam & Ankita.

4. It has thus been submitted that a dispute had erupted

between the parties, at the spur of the moment over

discharge of waste water in a drain. That dispute has

been blown out of proportion in the FIR narration only to

cause deep harassment and prejudice to the applicants

and to force them to withdraw from the civil proceeding.

The injury reports are claimed to have been manipulated,

in as much as, according to Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned

Senior Advocate there was no fracture injury noted in the

initial report, however, two months after the incident, a

fracture injury has been reported in the CT-scan. Such an

injury is stated