SATYAJEET PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO.
ABAIL/667/2025 · 2025-07-08
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 146356 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 146356 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38413 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 667 of 2025 Applicant :- Satyajeet Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwas Shukla,Ankit Kumar,Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 342 and 506 IPC and added sections 323/504/364 IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail application, stating that the victim, in both his initial and subsequent statements, has specifically alleged the complicity of the applicant. The offence under Section 364 IPC is of a serious nature. It does not appear to be a case of false implication. Upon careful examination of the victim’s statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the subsequent restatement, along with the CDR location details, the complicity of the applicant is evident. There is no indication that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely to harm his reputation. In view of the seriousness of the offence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench