Allowed

Pappu and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021BAIL/31566/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of two applicants in a Section 304 IPC case. The Court held that a general assault by all accused makes it difficult to identify the author of fatal injury, satisfying bail requirements under Article 21 and Dataram Singh dicta, subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicants to be released on bail subject to conditions including undertaking against adjournment, appearance on all dates, and verification of the order.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31566 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey,Lallan Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application filed on behalf of applicants seeking their bail in connection with Case Crime No.149 of 2020, u/s 304, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S.-Madhotanda, DistrictPilibhit.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that one Harishchandra has lodged the F.I.R. u/s 323, 308, 504 I.P.C. for causing the serious injuries to the deceased Ram Bharose and causing injury to injured Om Prakash. Contention is that on an insignificant and trivial issue a general assault was made by all named accused assailants by their respective lathi and danda causing injuries to Ram Bharose and Om Prakash. On account of said assault, Ram Bharose (aged about 65 years) has succumbed to his injuries and died on the very next day. As per the opinion of the doctor the deceased died on account of ante mortem head injury. I have perused the postmortem report which reveals that the deceased has received as many as five injuries over his person, out of which injury no.1 is on his head. It is argued by learned counsel that since a general and omnibus role of assault by lathi and danda has been attributed to all accused persons, it is difficult to decipher as to who is the author of fatal injury caused to the deceased. The applicant are in jail since 23.6.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail

¶10

application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicants Pappu and Vinod, who are involved in aforementioned Case Crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL

¶17

WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

1. The applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶22

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

¶23

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶24

4. 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.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 M. Kumar

Pappu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirthram Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Surya Bhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of Up

Veer Pratap Rai @ Tripurari Vs State of U.P.