Allowed

Pappu Pal @ Jai Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2020BAIL/27408/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application sought release in a rape case. The court granted bail applying the principle from Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P., directing that the applicant provide a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding witness tampering, trial cooperation, and presence in court.

Pappu Pal @ Jai Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27408 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu Pal @ Jai Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinod Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.0506 of 2020, under Sections 376, 511 I.P.C., Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to dispute regarding flowing of waste water, as the applicant and the victim are neighbour and often dispute arose between the parties. According to the F.I.R. version, when the victim was cleaning the roof of her house then the applicant hide himself inside the bathroom when she was returning back she caught hold and took her in bathroom and outraged her modesty, the victim made hue and cry and any how she escaped herself from the clutches of applicant. He further submitted that no photograph or video of victim has been made by the applicant. In statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. nothing has been said about footage of video camera. The statement made under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are contrary and not supporting the F.I.R. version and medical report. As per medical report, no sexual assault has been made. He next contended that the place of incident was densely populated but no independent witness statement has been recorded. There is no possibility of fleeing away of the applicant from the judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is also contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.06.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant oppose the bail prayer of the applicant and further submitted that since the applicant has involved and tried to commit rape, as such, he should not be released on bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., medical report regarding age of the victim and evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and the view laid down by the 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, the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant- Pappu Pal @ Jai Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No.0506 of 2020, under Sections 376, 511 I.P.C., Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified :-

¶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

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed. 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.

¶15

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

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground of cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Nitin Verma

Pappu Pal @ Jai Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Pal @ Jai 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

Subhash Giri Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Umar Usmani @ Patrakar Vs State of U.P.

Abbas Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Himanshu Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Vs State of U.P.