LUCKNOW vs Others

1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra and Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, Sri Shourya Parmar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal along with bail application has been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act against the bail rejection order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, N.I.A, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 9297 of 2024 related to F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0146 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 395, 307, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 4, 5 of the Explosives Substance Act and Section 3 (2) (V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Umari Begumganj, District- Gonda.

3. Learned counsel for appellant/applicant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime and has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. where four persons, namely, Santosh Paswan, Ram Karan, Ram Lagan and Ritesh are named as well as general allegations have been levelled against 20-25 persons, who have been said to be relatives of accused- Santosh Paswan. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the present appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and he is relative of Santosh Paswan. Nothing incriminating particularly relating to the Explosive 2 CRLA No. 3856 of 2024 Substance Act, so as to ensure the provision of N.I.A. Act has been recovered from the possession of the present appellant/applicant and if the prosecution is taken on its face value one motorcycle has been recovered from his possession. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicant, even during the course of the investigation the specific culpability the present applicant could not be traced out. The present appellant/applicant is having minor criminal history, which has been explained in para-23 of the bail application. Charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if is granted bail. He has further submitted the present appellant/applicant shall abide by all the terms of the bail order.

4. Per contra, Sri Shourya Parmar and Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that this is a case where the present applicant/appellant is an active member of the gang of Kuldeep Tiwari and he has committed the offence in question along with other accused persons. The other accused persons have used country made bomb and attacked at the premises of the complainant. The condition of the premises has been shown by means of Annexure C.A.-1 filed by the learned counsel for the informant, though the learned counsel for the opposite parties have admitted that the present appellant/applicant is not named in the F.I.R. nor any incriminating material particularly relating to the N.I.A Act has been recovered from his possession.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record without entering into the merits of the trial, considering the fact that the present appellant/applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; no specific role has been attributed to him; nothing incriminating particularly relating to Explosive Substance Act, so as to ensure the provision of the N.I.A. Act has been recovered from his possession; he has co-operated during the investigation; he is in jail since 16.7.2024; the charge-sheet has been filed and it would take some time in completion of trial; and the undertaking that he shall abide by all the terms of the bail and shall not misuse liberty of the bail, we find that it is a fit case for grant of bail of appellant/applicant.

6. Impugned order dated 21.11.2024 is hereby set aside.

7. Let appellant- Deepak Pandey @ Kamlesh Pandey be enlarged on 3 CRLA No. 3856 of 2024 bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The appellant/applicant shall deposit his passport with the learned Trial Court and would not leave the country, without the prior permission of this Court. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or shall not influence or approach any witness and shall not commit any offence. (iii) The appellant 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. (iv) The appellant shall provide his permanent verifiable address of his residence to the learned trial court and in case of any change, he shall immediately inform the learned trial court. (v) The appellant 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 her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vii) The appellant 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 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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. (viii) It is made clear that breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, would 4 CRLA No. 3856 of 2024 make the applicant liable for cancellation of bail and/or any other condition, as may be prescribed under law.

8. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. . (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) . December 10 , 2025 Anuj Singh ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra and Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, Sri Shourya Parmar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal along with bail application has been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act against the bail rejection order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, N.I.A, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 9297 of 2024 related to F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0146 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 395, 307, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 4, 5 of the Explosives Substance Act and Section 3 (2) (V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Umari Begumganj, District- Gonda.

3. Learned counsel for appellant/applicant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime and has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. where four persons, namely, Santosh Paswan, Ram Karan, Ram Lagan and Ritesh are named as well as general allegations have been levelled against 20-25 persons, who have been said to be relatives of accused- Santosh Paswan. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the present appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and he is relative of Santosh Paswan. Nothing incriminating particularly relating to the Explosive 2 CRLA No. 3856 of 2024 Substance Act, so as to ensure the provision of N.I.A. Act has been recovered from the possession of the present appellant/applicant and if the prosecution is taken on its face value one motorcycle has been recovered from his possession. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicant, even during the course of the investigation the specific culpability the present applicant could not be traced out. The present appellant/applicant is having minor criminal history, which has been explained in para-23 of the bail application. Charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if is granted bail. He has further submitted the present appellant/applicant shall abide by all the terms of the bail order.

4. Per contra, Sri Shourya Parmar and Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that this is a case where the present applicant/appellant is an active member of the gang of Kuldeep Tiwari and he has committed the offence in question along with other accused persons. The other accused persons have used country made bomb and attacked at the premises of the complainant. The condition of the premises has been shown by means of Annexure C.A.-1 filed by the learned counsel for the informant, though the learned counsel for the opposite parties have admitted that the present appellant/applicant is not named in the F.I.R. nor any incriminating material particularly relating to the N.I.A Act has been recovered from his possession.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record without entering into the merits of the trial, considering the fact that the present appellant/applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; no specific role has been attributed to him; nothing incriminating particularly relating to Explosive Substance Act, so as to ensure the provision of the N.I.A. Act has been recovered from his possession; he has co-operated during the investigation; he is in jail since 16.7.2024; the charge-sheet has been filed and it would take some time in completion of trial; and the undertaking that he shall abide by all the terms of the bail and shall not misuse liberty of the bail, we find that it is a fit case for grant of bail of appellant/applicant.

6. Impugned order dated 21.11.2024 is hereby set aside.

7. Let appellant- Deepak Pandey @ Kamlesh Pandey be enlarged on 3 CRLA No. 3856 of 2024 bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The appellant/applicant shall deposit his passport with the learned Trial Court and would not leave the country, without the prior permission of this Court. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or shall not influence or approach any witness and shall not commit any offence. (iii) The appellant 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. (iv) The appellant shall provide his permanent verifiable address of his residence to the learned trial court and in case of any change, he shall immediately inform the learned trial court. (v) The appellant 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 her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vii) The appellant 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 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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. (viii) It is made clear that breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, would 4 CRLA No. 3856 of 2024 make the applicant liable for cancellation of bail and/or any other condition, as may be prescribed under law.

8. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. . (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) . December 10 , 2025 Anuj Singh ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench