SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ravishankar Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 18 March, 2020


?Court No. – 83

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 10535 of 2020

Applicant :- Ravishankar Pandey

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Anand Kumar Pandey,Arya Suman Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that as per F.I.R. only Rs. 10,000/- sent by the first informant in the account of applicant and these rupees were immediately withdrawn by applicant and handed over to Deepak Kumar Mishra. He further submits that applicant have no knowledge about whatsoever of any transaction with respect to getting a job between the informant and Deepak Kumar Mishra. Applicant as well as the first informant both are relatives of co-accused Deepak Kumar Mishra and the applicant was misled and was informed by co-accused Deepak Kumar Mishra that he had to get some money transferred as he was taking out a loan from the relatives and friend for his own marriage. So the applicant gave his account number to him on 6.7.2016 and Rs. 10,000/- in cash and Rs. 5000/- twice through account was transferred in the bank account of the applicant, which was immediately withdrawn by the applicant by means of ATM. Applicant is a clerk in railways, New Delhi. Applicant has no previous criminal history. He is in jail since 14.2.2020.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant but contended that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may misuse the liberty of bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

Let the applicant Ravishankar Pandey involved in Case No. 1183 of 2019 arising out of 83 of 2018, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Haldi, District Ballia be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

(i)The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

Order Date :- 18.3.2020

Vibha Singh



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation