Allowed

Anil @ Pappu and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2018BAIL/24437/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application sought release for accused alleging false impication in a riot and attempted murder case. The court denied the protective argument of no independent witnesses but considered the severity of punishment and prima facie satisfaction of the charge insufficient to deny bail. It granted bail on personal bond with sureties under standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties each; conditions include attendance at trial, no tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities.

Anil @ Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24437 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Anil @ Pappu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Rai,Saurabh Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

¶6

Heard Sri Saurabh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, and Sri R.S.Parihar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

According to the prosecution version the complainant lodged the first information report against 6 named persons including the applicants and one unknown person alleging that all the accused who were in drunken condition committed marpeet whale he was on routine duty.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of their prayer for bail submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and they have committed no offence. It is further contended that according to the medical report the injury sustained by the injured on his hand were simple in nature and not dangerous to life. Neither anybody has witnessed the alleged incident nor given the statement in support of the said occurrence. In fact, the complainant, who was himself in a drunken condition and even not in proper police uniform misbehaved with the applicants and manipulated the entire story. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. No motive has been assigned to connect the applicants with the alleged offence. The applicantes are related to each other and belong to one family. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicants are languishing in jail since 27.5.2018.The applicants have no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,let the applicants namely Anil @ Pappu, Mukesh, and Monu @ Gidar involved in Case Crime No. 309 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Budhana, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶12

The applicants will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

They will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

They will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 21.8.2018 IA

Anil @ Pappu and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil @ Pappu and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maiyadeen Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep @ Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Azmatullah Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Janu Alias Jaan Alam Vs State of U.P.