Chudamani Pathak @ Sanjay Pathak v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43730 of 2023 Applicant :- Chudamani Pathak @ Sanjay Pathak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 379, 411, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 18.06.2023 and the first information report was lodged on 23.06.2023. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Surjeet Vind in the police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. False recovery of two ATM cards has been shown from the applicant. The recovered ATM cards were not connected with any offence. It is next contended that co-accused Surjeet Vind @ Chhotey Lal has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37385 of 2023, Surjeet Vind @ Chhotey Lal v. State of U.P., vide order dated 27.09.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-20 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 12.08.2023 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report and the recovered ATM cards were not connected with any offence. Co-accused Surjeet Vind @ Chhotey Lal has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Chudamani Pathak @ Sanjay Pathak, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 26.10.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad