Allowed

Pappu @ Ram Pratap and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2021BAIL/20460/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court allowed the release of co-accused Pappu @ Ram Pratap and another on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each, upon specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Pappu @ Ram Pratap and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20460 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu @ Ram Pratap And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No.248 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are general allegation of causing injury against the applicants. He further submits that the co-accused Kailash and Rajaram have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4353 of 2021, therefore, the applicants are also entitled for bail. There is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicants and are languishing in jail since 25.02.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, enlargement of co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicants are entitled for bail, let the applicants- Pappu @ Ram Pratap and Angoor involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 :-

¶10

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will

¶11

cooperate with the trial. The applicants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicants 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

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 for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Jitendra

Pappu @ Ram Pratap and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu @ Ram Pratap and Another 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

Jitendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Jeet Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Pavitra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sudama Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raj Bahadur Vs State of U.P.