Allowed

Pavan Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2018BAIL/28041/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to an accused in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The court noted a cross-case had been registered and cognizance taken, but held a prima facie case for bail was made out due to investigation delays and witness non-cooperation, directing speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant on personal bond with two sureties; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 CrPC.

Pavan Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28041 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pavan Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Das Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Dubey,Pawan Singh Pundir

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam Das and Sri Rajesh Mishra learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2016 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2017.

¶7

The contention of Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant is to the effect that at the time when first bail application was rejected, a plea of cross case was taken but at that stage since after investigation, the police submitted a final report in the cross case, hence, the same could not be pressed in an effective manner and the bail application itself was rejected. It has been contended that thereafter the applicant had filed a protest petition and on the protest petition, cognizance has been taken and a detailed order has been passed. The attention has been drawn to paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the State wherein it has been admitted that the cognizance has been taken. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance on the order passed by the Magistrate while deciding the protest petition to demonstrate that the cognizance has been taken in a very detailed and in an elaborated manner and after much castigation of the investigating officer.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has strongly opposed the bail application of the applicant with the contention that with regard to cross case, the same has already been considered in the first bail application, however, he does not dispute the fact that after rejecting the first bail application while deciding the protest petition, the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and the case has been registered as the said case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent also contends that the witnesses are not cooperating with the investigation, however, nevertheless, fact remains that as on the date a cross case has been registered and cognizance has been taken and that the applicant is in jail since 31.03.2016.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a

¶11

case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Pavan Pratap Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶19

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702,, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶21

Since it has been informed that against the order of cognizance, a revision has been filed which is pending consideration before the court concerned, it is being made clear that observation made herein above will not in any manner whatsoever prejudice the hearing of the revision and the revision shall be heard on its own merits. This Court is not expressing any opinion with regard to the validity or the invalidity of the order challenging the cognizance which is the sole subject matter pending consideration of the court concerned in the revision. The revision may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.12.2018 Ram Chander

Pavan Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan Pratap Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtyar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Buddhu Lal Patel Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Tiwari @ Sonu Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.