High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Krishna Mani Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Tanmay Krishna Srivastava,Govind Krishna Srivastava,Ujjwal Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to F.I.R. /Case Crime No. 09 of 2025 under Sections 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 338 and 303(2) of BNS of 2023, Police Station Sadulla Nagar, District Balrampur.

4. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 06.02 2025 when a police party during routine checking intercepted a motorcycle with two riders and subsequently transpired that the said motorcycle had been registered as stolen. It is also stated that two persons thereafter confessed their guilt which led to recovery of other stolen motorcycles.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he has neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation been levelled against him and that he has been taken into custody only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of the apprehended persons. It is submitted that there is no independent witness of any alleged recovery from the applicant and there is no direct evidence linking with the crime alleged. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 28.02.2025 with seven cases previous criminal history which has already been explained.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the apprehended persons in fact took the name of one Shesh Mani Pandey who is also nominated in the FIR but during investigation, it came to knowledge that the said person in fact was the applicant and was wrongly identified by the apprehended persons deliberately. It is however admitted that previous criminal history has been explained.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that except for alleged confessional statement of apprehended persons, there is no direct evidence linking the applicant with the crime alleged. There does not appear to be any recovery from the applicant. The previous criminal history of the applicant has already been explained.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant Krishna Mani Pandey involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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. (ii) 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 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 209 BNS. (iv) 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 351 BNSS. 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. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Krishna Mani Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Tanmay Krishna Srivastava,Govind Krishna Srivastava,Ujjwal Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to F.I.R. /Case Crime No. 09 of 2025 under Sections 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 338 and 303(2) of BNS of 2023, Police Station Sadulla Nagar, District Balrampur.

4. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 06.02 2025 when a police party during routine checking intercepted a motorcycle with two riders and subsequently transpired that the said motorcycle had been registered as stolen. It is also stated that two persons thereafter confessed their guilt which led to recovery of other stolen motorcycles.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he has neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation been levelled against him and that he has been taken into custody only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of the apprehended persons. It is submitted that there is no independent witness of any alleged recovery from the applicant and there is no direct evidence linking with the crime alleged. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 28.02.2025 with seven cases previous criminal history which has already been explained.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the apprehended persons in fact took the name of one Shesh Mani Pandey who is also nominated in the FIR but during investigation, it came to knowledge that the said person in fact was the applicant and was wrongly identified by the apprehended persons deliberately. It is however admitted that previous criminal history has been explained.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that except for alleged confessional statement of apprehended persons, there is no direct evidence linking the applicant with the crime alleged. There does not appear to be any recovery from the applicant. The previous criminal history of the applicant has already been explained.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant Krishna Mani Pandey involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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. (ii) 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 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 209 BNS. (iv) 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 351 BNSS. 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. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench