Allahabad High Court
SUDAMA PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Sudama Pandey in a 2019 case involving alleged misappropriation of food grains under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120B and 34 of the IPC. Pandey contended that he was a fair‑price shop dealer, the FIR was lodged after a fourteen‑year delay, there was no allegation of absconding, and co‑accused in similar matters had been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual similarity. The Court noted the excessive delay, the pending investigation, and the precedent of bail to co‑accused, and held that a prima facie case for anticipatory bail existed. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions. The order clarified that the observations were limited to the bail application and not an opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the IPC offences alleged against the applicant.
- Whether the fourteen‑year delay in lodging the FIR warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to co‑accused in similar cases is a relevant factor for the applicant's bail.
- Whether conditions can be imposed on the anticipatory bail to safeguard the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 34, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- IPC offences
- high court inherent powers
- bail conditions
- fair price shop dealer
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
482 BNSS No. - 8218 of 2026
Sudama Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yadvesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and Learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on
behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0008 of 2019, under
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120B and 34 of the
IPC, Police Station – Varanasi Sector (E.O.W.), District
Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as
the applicant apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant
was a fair price shop dealer in the year 2004-05 and it has been
alleged that the applicant in league with the other accused on
the basis of fake muster roll had misappropriated food grains.
The Learned counsel for the applicant contends that similarly
named co-accused Ram Kishore Maurya and Aliyar Ram have
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL Nos.
6684 of 2026 and 4019 of 2026 respectively. He further
submits that the FIR has been lodged after an excessive delay
of almost fourteen years. The investigation is still pending and
there is no allegation against the applicant of absconding or not
cooperating in the investigation.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could
not dispute the fact that the case of the applicant stands on
NABAIL No. 8218 of 2026
2
similar footing to that of the co-accused.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned
counsel for the parties.
6. Co-accused Ram Kishore Maurya who was the Gram
Panchayat Vikas Adhikari and Aliyar Ram who was the
Assistant Development Officer posted at the relevant point of
time have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The FIR
has been lodged with an excessive delay of almost fourteen
years. The investigation is still said to be pending while the
FIR was lodged in the year 2019.
7. In the prima facie opinion of the Court, taking into account
the entire facts and circumstances of the case, a case for grant
of anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Sudama Pandey,
involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on
anticipatory bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House
Officer of the police station/Court concerned, with the
following conditions:-
i. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation
by a police officer as and when required;
ii. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iii. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;
iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court
concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
NABAIL No. 8218 of 2026
3
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are
exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail
application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the
merits of the case.
September 8, 2026
Kushal
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…