Dismissed

Alok Pandey @ Pappu Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2019BAIL/32242/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that bail is rejected as the medical condition of the applicant is treatable within the jail itself. No new grounds were found for bail despite the applicant's claim of illness in a serious POCSO case involving a minor victim. However, the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and ensure witness presence.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; trial to be concluded within one year.

Alok Pandey @ Pappu Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32242 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Alok Pandey @ Pappu Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tiwari,Girja Shanker Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶7

Sri Amarnath Tiwari, Advocate has filed second supplementary affidavit on bhealf of applicant, which is taken on record.

¶8

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 58 of 2016, under Section 376 I.P.C and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Sarai Mamrej, District Allahabad. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 12.01.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1373 of 2017.

¶9

I have perused the statement of the girl who is minor child aged about 6 years. The second bail application is being expressed solely on the ground that applicant is suffering from some lower back pain and support of this contention reliance has been placed upon the report of Jail Superintendent, which has been perused and shows that he is suffering from some lower back pain for which treatment is being provided in jail itself. Looking to the fact that the girl is a minor aged about four years, there is no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record. The medical treatment if, required the Jail Superintendent will ensure that medial aid provide to him.

¶10

Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

¶12

However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded within one year and in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Vikram

Alok Pandey @ Pappu Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Pandey @ Pappu Pandey 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

Abhishek Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Alias Goli Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnabaj Vs State of U.P.

Rahmatullah Vs State of U.P.

Irfan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shailesh Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.