High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Manan Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Mrs. Janlakshmi Senin, Mr. S.P. Mishra Senin, Mr. Vineet Kumar Mishra, Ms. Malti Mishra, Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. Sai Girdhar, Ms. Ekta Sharma, Ms. Shivani Yadav and Ms. Jahnvi Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.416 of 2013 under Sections 307, 504, 201, 419, 420, 471 of IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 13.10.2024. He further submitted that the applicant was enjoying his matrimonial life, but his father-in-law, namely, Shri Lallanji Ojha was not happy with the cordial relation of applicant and his wife, as a result, he lodged one FIR bearing No.61 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 509 IPC and Section 67 (A) of IT Act, PS- Gomti Nagar Extension, District- Lucknow on 15.06.2020. After submission of final report, his daughter (wife of applicant) categorically denied the contents of the aforesaid FIR, as a result, final report no.2 dated 06.05.2022 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and submitted to the court concerned. He vehemently submitted that on the basis of incorrect facts, FIR of case in question was lodged. As per the prosecution case, the fire was opened by the applicant on the informant of the present case, as a result, he received injuries. Then he was brought to the hospital on bike by one Pranav Mishra. During the course of investigation, statement of informant/injured was recorded. In his statement, he categorically stated that Pranav Mishra brought him to the hospital. At the same time, statement of Pranav Mishra was also recorded by the Investigating Officer, in which, he categorically denied the contents of statement of informant and stated that he did not bring the informant to the hospital. He further submitted that as per the medico-legal report, informant/injured was brought to the hospital by one Rupesh Dixit who also denied the version of the informant/injured. He next submitted that on the behest of informant, applicant was being victimized by the jail authorities and when he reported the same to the authorities, then he was medically examined, in which, certain injuries were also found on the body of the applicant when he was inside the jail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant was first taken into custody on 26.06.2020 and he was released on interim bail on 07.05.2021 vide order dated 05.05.2021 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereafter, he surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and at the same time, he again requested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for extension of bail, but the same was rejected with the liberty to the applicant to file fresh bail application before the High Court. As a result, he has filed the present bail application. He further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.10.2024, charge sheet has been filed and name of 26 witnesses are shown in the charge sheet but till today, charge has not been framed and in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant also informed that today, the case was listed before the trial court for framing of charge, but charge could not be framed, as a result, the case has been adjourned and the same has been fixed on 10.01.2025.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail and submitted that applicant was a fugitive and he avoided the proceedings of trial court from the date of lodging of FIR upto date of his arrest and he has also misused the liberty given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They also submitted that the statement of informant/injured corroborates with the medico- legal report, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.

7. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.2247 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2005 of 2021 as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the liberty was given to the applicant to approach the High Court by moving the bail application and the request was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the High Court to make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, present bail application was filed. As per the prosecution case, the informant/injured was brought to the hospital by Pranav Mishra and admission in hospital was given with the assistance of Rupesh Dixit, but in the statement of Pranav Mishra and Rupesh Dixit, both of them have denied the aforesaid facts. As the applicant is in jail since 13.10.2024 but till today, charge has not been framed. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Let applicant - Anshuman Pandey - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh Rupees Only) and two reliable sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh Rupees Only) each subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) 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. (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 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 IPC. (v) 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 IPC. (vi) 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.

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

10. Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 V. Sinha VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Manan Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Mrs. Janlakshmi Senin, Mr. S.P. Mishra Senin, Mr. Vineet Kumar Mishra, Ms. Malti Mishra, Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. Sai Girdhar, Ms. Ekta Sharma, Ms. Shivani Yadav and Ms. Jahnvi Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.416 of 2013 under Sections 307, 504, 201, 419, 420, 471 of IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 13.10.2024. He further submitted that the applicant was enjoying his matrimonial life, but his father-in-law, namely, Shri Lallanji Ojha was not happy with the cordial relation of applicant and his wife, as a result, he lodged one FIR bearing No.61 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 509 IPC and Section 67 (A) of IT Act, PS- Gomti Nagar Extension, District- Lucknow on 15.06.2020. After submission of final report, his daughter (wife of applicant) categorically denied the contents of the aforesaid FIR, as a result, final report no.2 dated 06.05.2022 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and submitted to the court concerned. He vehemently submitted that on the basis of incorrect facts, FIR of case in question was lodged. As per the prosecution case, the fire was opened by the applicant on the informant of the present case, as a result, he received injuries. Then he was brought to the hospital on bike by one Pranav Mishra. During the course of investigation, statement of informant/injured was recorded. In his statement, he categorically stated that Pranav Mishra brought him to the hospital. At the same time, statement of Pranav Mishra was also recorded by the Investigating Officer, in which, he categorically denied the contents of statement of informant and stated that he did not bring the informant to the hospital. He further submitted that as per the medico-legal report, informant/injured was brought to the hospital by one Rupesh Dixit who also denied the version of the informant/injured. He next submitted that on the behest of informant, applicant was being victimized by the jail authorities and when he reported the same to the authorities, then he was medically examined, in which, certain injuries were also found on the body of the applicant when he was inside the jail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant was first taken into custody on 26.06.2020 and he was released on interim bail on 07.05.2021 vide order dated 05.05.2021 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereafter, he surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and at the same time, he again requested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for extension of bail, but the same was rejected with the liberty to the applicant to file fresh bail application before the High Court. As a result, he has filed the present bail application. He further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.10.2024, charge sheet has been filed and name of 26 witnesses are shown in the charge sheet but till today, charge has not been framed and in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant also informed that today, the case was listed before the trial court for framing of charge, but charge could not be framed, as a result, the case has been adjourned and the same has been fixed on 10.01.2025.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail and submitted that applicant was a fugitive and he avoided the proceedings of trial court from the date of lodging of FIR upto date of his arrest and he has also misused the liberty given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They also submitted that the statement of informant/injured corroborates with the medico- legal report, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.

7. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.2247 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2005 of 2021 as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the liberty was given to the applicant to approach the High Court by moving the bail application and the request was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the High Court to make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, present bail application was filed. As per the prosecution case, the informant/injured was brought to the hospital by Pranav Mishra and admission in hospital was given with the assistance of Rupesh Dixit, but in the statement of Pranav Mishra and Rupesh Dixit, both of them have denied the aforesaid facts. As the applicant is in jail since 13.10.2024 but till today, charge has not been framed. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Let applicant - Anshuman Pandey - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh Rupees Only) and two reliable sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh Rupees Only) each subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) 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. (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 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 IPC. (v) 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 IPC. (vi) 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.

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

10. Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 V. Sinha VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench