Allowed

Om Prakash @ Oma Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2021BAIL/6272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6272 of 2021, the High Court at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant Om Prakash @ Oma Pandit charged with attempted murder under Sections 307 and 336 IPC. The court allowed the bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, citing Article 21 and precedent.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to specific conditions including attendance at trial and prohibition on tampering with witn

Om Prakash @ Oma Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6272 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash @ Oma Pandit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Yadav,Mahendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mritunjay Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi,learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 334 of 2020, under Sections- 307, 336 IPC, Police StationSasani, District- Hathras, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per the FIR, the applicant attempted to murder the informant by hitting Santro Car which was driven by co-accused Yogesh but nobody sustained any injury. It is next contended that ingredients for attempt to murder under Section 307 is not fulfilled as per the allegation made in the FIR. The criminal history of 34 cases against the applicant are explained hereunder:-

¶8

I. Case crime no. 96 of 1985 under section 394, 307 IPC, P.S.- Jalesar, District-Eath. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶9

II.Case crime no. 95 of 1985 under section 392 IPC, P.S.Sasni, District-Hathras. In this case the applicant has been granted bail. The Trial Court is pending.

¶10

III.Case crime no. 105 of 1985 under section 25 Arms Act, P.S.- Sasni, District-Hathras. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶11

IV.Case crime no. 145 of 1985 under section 392 IPC, P.S. Atmadpur, District-Agra. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶12

V. Case crime no. 299 of 1986 under section 110 G CrPC, P.S.- Sasni, District-Hathras. It is regarding the proceeding under section 110 G Cr.P.C, it is submitted that the ID. Magistrate had ordered to execute bond with sureties for good behaviour in 1986.

¶13

the maximum period for executing bond with sureties would not exceed 3 years as provided under section 110 CrPC. The maximum period of 3 years already expired.

¶14

VI.Case crime no. 70 of 1989 under section 323, 324, 504 IPC, P.S.- Sasni , Distict-Hathras. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶15

VII.Case crime no. 7 of 1997 under section 302 IPC, P.S.Sasni, Distrxut- Hathras. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶16

VIII.Case crime no. 395 of 1992 under section 307 IPC, P.S.-Sasni, District-Hathras. It is police firing, no injury case. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶17

IX.Case crime no. 82 of 1992 under section 25 of Arms Act, P.S.-Sasni, District-Hathras. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶18

X.Case crime no. 25 of 1992 under section 307 IPC, P.S.Sasni, District Hathras. It is police firing, no injury case. In this case the applicant is on bail.

¶19

XI.Case crime no. 17 of 1992 under section 302 IPC, P.S.Sasni, District-Hathras. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by Trial Court.

¶20

XII.Case crime no. 213 of 1993 under section 03 of U.P. Gunda Act, P.S.-Sasni, District -Hathras. It is regarding the proceeding under section U.P. Gunda Act. It is submitted that the proceeding initiated in 1993 and maximum period of 6 month for externment expired 26 years ago.

¶21

XIII.Case crime no. 15 of 1994 under section 399, 402, IPC, P.S.- Sasni, District- Hathras. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶22

XIV.Case crime no. 27 of 1994 under section 25 of the Arms Act, P.S.- Sasni, District- Hathras. In this case the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶23

XV.Case crime no. 26 of 1994 under section 307 of IPC, P.S.- Sasni, District- Hathras. In this case the applicant is on bail.

¶24

XVI.Case crime no. 207 of 1996 under section 110 G CrPC, P.S.- Sasni, District-Hathras. It is regarding the proceeding under section 110 G Cr.P.C, it is submitted that the ID. Magistrate had ordered to execute bond with sureties for good behaviour in 1996. the maximum period for executing bond with sureties would not exceed 3 years as provided under section 110 Cr.P.C. The maximum period of 3 years already expired.

¶25

XVII.Case crime no. 158 of 2002 under section 110 G Cr.P.C, P.S.- Sasni, District-Hathras. It is regarding the proceeding under section 110 G Cr.P.C, it is submitted that the ID. Magistrate had ordered to execute bond with sureties for good behaviour in 2002. the maximum period for executing bond with sureties would not exceed 3 years as provided under section 110 Cr.P.C. The maximum period of 3 years already expired.

¶26

XVIII.Case crime no. 168 of 2002 under section 03 of the U.P. Gunda Act, P.S.- Sasni, District- Hathras. It is regarding the proceeding under section U.P. Gunda Act. It is submitted that the proceeding initiated in 1993 and maximum period of 6 month for externment expired 18 years ago.

¶27

XIX.Case crime no. 148 of 2010 under section 332, 353, 506 IPC, P.S.- Sasni, District- Hathras. In this case the applicant has been granted bail and the Trial is pending before the Trial Court.

¶28

XX.Case Crime No. 242 of 2012 under section 41/109 Cr.P.C, P.S.- Sasni, District-Hathras. It is regarding the proceeding under section 109 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the Id. Magistrate had order to execute bond with sureties for good behaviour in 2012. the maximum period for executing bond with sureties would not exceed 3 years as provided under section 109 of Cr.P.C.the maximum period of 3 years is already expired.

¶29

XXI.Case crime no. 798 of 2015 under section 110 G Cr.PC, P.S.- Sasni, District-Hathras. It is regarding the proceeding under section 110 G Cr.PC, it is submitted that the ID. Magistrate had ordered to execute bond with sureties for good behaviour in 2015. the maximum period for executing bond with sureties would not exceed 3

¶30

years as provided under section 110 Cr.PC. The maximum period of 3 years already expired.

¶31

XXII.Case crime no. 318 of 2020 under section 379, 336, 441 IPC, P.S.- Sasni, District- Hathras. In this case the bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below. The bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court.

¶32

XXIII.Case crime no. 334 of 2020 under section 307, 336, IPC, P.S.- Sasni, District- Hathras. This is present case.

¶33

XXIV.Case crime no. 339 of 2020 under section 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S.-Sasni, District- Hathras.

¶34

It is next contended that the incident is of 19.9.2020 but the FIR has been lodged on 11.11.2020 after the delay of 40 days and no explanation has been given by the informant. It is a case of no injury as alleged in the FIR itself. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. The applicant is in jail since 13.11.2020.

¶35

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submits that the applicant chequered history and is not entitled for any indulgence but he admitted the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶36

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. The application is allowed.

¶37

Let the applicant, Om Prakash @ Oma Pandit who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his 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.

¶38

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶39

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶40

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶41

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶42

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

Order Date :- 21.9.2021 Akbar

Om Prakash @ Oma Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash @ Oma Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Annu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Sadiq Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash @ Oma Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Vs State of U.P.