# Prem Sagar Pandey v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 195 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-02 - **Bench:** Arun Tandon - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-sagar-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-43519 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 3 All. Prem Sagar Pandey Vs State Of U.P. 195 state route without there being an agreement in between the States. Considering the same, on two occasions, time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions but no instructions has yet been obtained, therefore the impugned order refusing to grant permit is faulty on this count. Otherwise also, from the perusal of the order, it does not transpire that before refusing to grant permit any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner whereas the petitioner has taken specific ground that the impugned order dated 13.3.2015 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. 24. So far as appellate order is concerned, the appellate authoirty, taking note of the submissions of both the sides, has dismissed the appeal holding it to be not maintainable. I fail to understand as to how the appeal would not be maintainable ignoring the statutory provisions contained under Section 89 (1) (g) of the Act only because of noting of the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. Here, the appellate authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it in view of the provisions contained under Sub-Section 1(g) of Section 89 of the Act. The factum of which could not be disputed by learned Standing Counsel. Hence, both the orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 25. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.3.2015 passed by the State Transport Authority and order dated 3.8.2015 passed by the State Transport Appeallate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2015 (Mohit Kumar Goyal Vs. U.P. Transport Commissioner, Lucknow) are hereby quashed. The State Transport Authority is directed to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law taking note of the observation made hereinabove. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 39462 of 2014 Prem Sagar Pandey ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. .......Respondent Counsel for Applicant: Ramji Tripathi, Sheshadri Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate, Dileep Kumar HELD: 1. This was the second bail application filed by the applicant in Special Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2011 arising from Case Crime No. 237/2010 involving Sections 302, 307, 427, 429, 120-B IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Gangsters Act, and Criminal Law Amendment Act. 196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2. The earlier bail application had been rejected; SLP was later withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court afresh. 3. The application was pressed principally on **ground of parity**, as multiple co‐accused-some with significantly more serious roles-had already been granted bail. 4. On facts, the applicant was **not named in the FIR**; the allegation surfaced only during investigation. 5. His assigned role was limited to arranging temporary residence for other accused and the scooter allegedly used to plant the explosive; even this was based on the investigative version. 6. Co‐accused with far more direct and active roles-such as Dilip Mishra (alleged mastermind), Rajesh Yadav, Kripa Shanker Pandey, Rafiq and Subhash Vishwakarma (who allegedly prepared the explosive‐laden dicky), and others-had already been granted bail. 7. The Court accepted that the applicant's role was **substantially similar** to that of co‐accused Keshav Pandey, who was also granted bail. 8. The gravity of the offence, involving a bomb blast seriously injuring Cabinet Minister Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi and resulting in two deaths, was acknowledged but held **not decisive** when more culpable co‐accused had already been released. 9. The Court rejected the State's objection that misuse of bail by Dilip Mishra should operate against the applicant; such misuse could not be attributed to persons not yet enlarged on bail. 10. The Court held that continued incarceration of the applicant would be unjustified when the alleged principal conspirators were already on bail. 11. Parity, proportionality of role, and fairness required that the applicant also be released on bail. 12. Bail was accordingly granted subject to strict conditions preventing tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, or non‐appearance before the trial court. Case Law Discussed: No specific judicial precedents cited in the order; decision is based primarily on factual parity and settled principles governing successive bail applications. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.) 1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi and Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, senior Advocates assisted by Sri Ramji Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dileep Kumar assisted by Sri Rajshree Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party. 2. This is the second bail application made by Sri Prem Sagar Pandey for his being enlarged on bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2011, State Vs. Dilip Mishra and others arising out of Case Crime No. 237 of 2010 under Sections 302, 307, 427, 429, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 2/3 (1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad during the pendency of trial. 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the F.I.R., are that the complainant Kamal Kumar stated in his report that he is the cousin brother of Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi and for the last 4-5 years, he is living with Nand Gopal Gupta and looking after his business. Dilip Mishra, Block Pramukh, Chaka is a notorious criminal and having enmity with Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi. Rajesh Yadav and Kripa Shanker Pandey, who are the members of the gang of Dilip Mishra, told the first informant 4-5 days prior to the incident that they had managed everything and Dilip Mishra would get Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi murdered. It has been further stated that the complainant told all theses things to Nand Gopal Gupta @ 3 All. Prem Sagar Pandey Vs State Of U.P. 197 Nandi, who said that he is a Cabinet Minister and is being provided security by the Government, as such he should not pay heed to the threats of Kripa Shanker Pandey and Rajesh Yadav. On 12.7.2010, the complainant was at the house of Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi situate at Bahadurganj at 11 a.m. Nandi was going to the temple followed by the complainant. His security guard Sanjai Singh, Press Reporter Vijay Pratap Singh and Rakesh Malviya started walking with Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi. He was also followed by his brother, P.S.O. Rathod and other people. As soon as Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi reached near his old house, there was a blast in a scooty parked therein causing serious injuries to Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi and his accompanying persons. The complainant took Sanjai Singh, Vijay Pratap, Rakesh Malviya, Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi and other injured to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital and admitted them. The complainant had full belief that this incident was given effect to by Dilip Mishra, Rajesh Yadav, Kripa Shanker Pandey and his men. In this incident, Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi was seriously injured, two persons lost their lives and some others were also injured. 4. The first bail application made on behalf of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 9th January, 2013 being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25262 of 2012. Not being satisfied with the order of the High Court, the applicant filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3354 of 2013 before the Apex Court. before the Apex Court, it was stated that other co-accused have been enlarged on bail subsequently, therefore, the applicant be permitted to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to approach the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 21.7.2014 with the observation that the High Court will do the needful to dispose of the application for bail as expeditiously as possible. 5. This second bail application has been pressed basically on ground of parity. It is stated that as against 16 said to be involved in the alleged offence (a) Vijay Mishra has been granted bail on 17.8.2012, (b) Dilip Mishra has been granted bail on 19.5.2014, (c) Rafiq has been granted on 6.8.2013, (d) Subhash Vishwakarma has been granted bail on 25.9.2013, (e) Keshav Pandey has been granted bail on 12.2.2014, (f) Rajesh Yadav has been granted bail on 5.5.2015 and (g) Kripa Shanker Pandey, whose first bail application was rejected, has been granted bail with reference to the second bail application filed by him on 25.9.2014. 6. It is stated that while the accused, Prem Sagar Pandey was not named in the F.I.R. and only role assigned to him was of arranging the place of residence for the other coaccused and the vehicle said to have been used for the incident was owned by his nephew. The allegation as has been noticed above are so recorded in the investigation report. 7. It is submitted that Dilip Mishra, Kripa Shanker Pandey and Rajesh Yadaav, who were named int he FIR and were said to be actively involved in the incident have already been granted bail by this Court as noticed above. It is also submitted that the role assigned to Rafiq and Subhas Vishwakarma (stated to be scooter mechanics) is to have prepared the dicky of the scooty, wherein RDX was planted. Similarly the role assigned to Keshav Pandey is more or less same as assigned to the applicant, while the role assigned to Kripa 198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Shanker Pandey and Rajesh Yadav were members of the gang of Dilip Mishra, who is said to be the main kingpin. It is stated that there is hardly any fact for denial of the bail to the applicant on the plea of party. The role assigned to applicant is insignificant vis a vis the role assigned to the accused have been granted bail. 8. Sri Dileep Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the respondents points out that the attack was planned at the behest of Dilip Mishra. The applicant before us was one of the links to be said planting RDX, which has been used for exploding the dicky of the scooty, placed outside the residence of Nandi. Six persons were injured, two of whom were expired subseqently. 9. Dilip Mishra and Vijay Mishra are leaders of the gang are notorious criminals. The applicant is one of the members of the gang led by aforesaid two persons. It is also stated that there has been manifest misuse of bail by Dilip Mishra and he has committed heinous offences after being enlarged on bail. Bail cancellation application is pending for consideration before the Court concerned. Sri Dileep Gupta, therefore, submits that it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the applicant on bail. Reference is also made to the order passed on the bail application filed by Shiv Mohan Pandey, one of the other coaccused dated 24.9.2015. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and examined the records of the present case. 11. I have no doubt a serious offence has been committed as per the First Information Report and that such incidents do sake the confidence of public at large, specifically having regard to the manner of execution of the offence in broad day light in a public street. But at the same time the Court is also conscious of the fact that the persons were alleged to have planned the entire act namely, Dilip Mishra and Vijay Mishra have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The applicant-Prem Sagar Pandey can be said to be a panic in the hands of the aforesaid persons if the entire version of the investigation is accepted on its face value. If the main accused and the persons responsible for the planning and execution have been enlarged on bail by this Court, then there is little or no reason to keep the applicantPrem Sagar Pandey in confinement pending investigation is accepted. 12. In the totality of the circumstances and having regard to the order, which have been passed on the bail application of Keshav pandey, who had been assigned practical the same role by the investigation, I deem fit and proper to direct that the applicant-Prem Sagar Pandey be also released on bail. 13. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant Prem Sagar Pandey, involved in Case Crime No. 237 of 2010, under Sections 302, 307, 427, 429, 120- B I.P.C. and 3/5 Explosive Substance Act, 2/3 (1) of the U.P.Gangsters Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment 3 All. Surya Pandey @ Kuldeep Pandey & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. 199 Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. 2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court. 15. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically be cancelled. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED- ALLAHABAD 04.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Capital Case No. - 2401 of 2015 Surya Pandey @ Kuldeep Pandey & Ors. ...Appellants Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, and Sri Ramji Tripathi, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Dileep Kumar, assisted by Sri Rajshree Gupta, Advocate. HELD: 1. The prosecution case was based primarily on eyewitness testimony supported by circumstantial and medical evidence. 2. The delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained; the Court held that mere delay does not render the FIR doubtful when circumstances justify it. 3. PW‐1 and PW‐2, being natural witnesses present at the scene, gave consistent and credible accounts of the incident; minor discrepancies were held immaterial. 4. The presence of PW‐7, initially disputed, was confirmed through medical evidence and corroborative testimony. 5. The Court rejected arguments that the FIR was fabricated or ante‐timed; contemporaneous medical documentation supported authenticity. 6. Motive, though not essential where direct evidence exists, was sufficiently demonstrated through prior enmity and threats.