Allowed

Pappu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019BAIL/6561/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6561 of 2019 granted bail to Pappu accused under the Arms Act. The applicant challenged his implication alleging false recovery and torture of co-accused. The court imposed strict conditions regarding court attendance and adherence to timelines.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of applicant on bail with execution of a personal bond and two sureties before the court concerned subject to multiple conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6561 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed the alleged offence. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the recovery shown from the possession of the applicant is false. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant came to light in the confessional statement of the co-accused Bhure Khan after he has been meted out 3rd degree torture and there there is no single public witness of the recovery alleged to have been shown against the applicant.

¶7

It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 31.12.2018, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

¶9

Keeping in view the submissions advanced, complicity of the accused, reformative theory of punishment, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Pappu , involved in Case Crime No. 369 of 2018, under Section- 3/5/25 Arms Act Police Station- Amanpur, District- Kasganj, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties (Rs. One Lac each) (One should be of a family member) before the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶11

i. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for

¶12

evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

ii. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

iii.In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

iv.The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶16

v. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 5.4.2019 N.A.

Pappu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotu @ Shamsad Vs State of U.P.

Chhotu @ Shamsad Vs State of U.P.

Chhotu @ Shamsad Vs State of U.P.

Mujeeb Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Javed Vs Union of India through Ncb Lucknow

Pankaj @ Veerbhan Singh Vs State of U.P.