Allowed

Nikku @ Pappu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019BAIL/23743/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail under Section 364-A IPC was allowed. The single judge referred to the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh and granted bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, imposing standard conditions regarding tampering with evidence and cooperation in trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Nikku @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23743 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Nikku @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Kiran Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mahesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Shoaib Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Nikku @ Pappu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2012, under Sections 364-A I.P.C., Police Station Fatehpur Seekari, District Agra , during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The co-accused- Suresh , Satish Baghel and Ravi have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.11.2016, 01.12.2017 and 30.07.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Nos. 39603 of 2016, 33393 of 2017 and 11771 of 2014 copies of which orders have been apppended as Annexure no. 5 of the affidavit accompanying the bail applicant and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.04.2019. The applicant has no criminal history except in the present case. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 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 a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶10

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.7.2019 Priya

Nikku @ Pappu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikku @ Pappu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajarangi Harijan Vs State of U.P.

Prakash @ Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Nikhil Alias Rampal Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Qurasi Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.