Allahabad High Court
PANKAJ @ SHANKARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted, subject to conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pankaj @ Shankar, who is accused in Crime No. 740 of 2021 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that no specific role was assigned to him, and that the eyewitness statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was unreliable. The State opposed bail, arguing that innocence cannot be determined at the pre‑trial stage and that the applicant might reoffend if released. Relying on Article 21 of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents (Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI), the Court held that bail should be granted without passing on the merits. The Court ordered the applicant to be released on personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witness intimidation. The bail order also stipulated verification of identity and residence of the applicant and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused facing multiple serious IPC offences pending trial.
- Whether the pre‑trial stage permits denial of bail on the ground of alleged risk of reoffending.
- Whether the applicant's claim of false implication and lack of specific role warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- IPC offences
- witness tampering
- Criminal Procedure Code
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39198 of 2022
Pankaj @ Shankar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinkar Lal, Hemant Sharma, S.M.Faraz
I. Kazmi, Sikandar Khan, Sudhanshu
Pratap Singh, Swetashwa Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Tiwari, Alok Yati, Arvind
Kumar Singh, G.A., Sanjay Kumar
Upadhyay
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-
respondents and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant-
Pankaj @ Shankar seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 740
of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 323, 302, 307 IPC,
Police Station Gulawati, District Bulandshahar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely
implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2021.
It is submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is
further submitted that eye-witness Payal @ Pooja in her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned specific role of firing to
the applicant, however she failed to prove her presence on the place of
occurrence. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently
long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or
tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been
prayed for.
4. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be
BAIL No. 39198 of 2022
2
adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.
It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he
may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant,
keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger
mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering
paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs.
Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex
Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10
SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let
the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his
furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses.
(ii) The applicant 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.
(iv) The applicant 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him.
(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him strictly, in accordance with law.
6. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the trial court.
BAIL No. 39198 of 2022
3
7. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 19, 2026
Virendra
Digitally signed by :-
VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…