Allowed

Prem Pasi v. the State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2022/3347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 CrPC involved the accused Prem Pasi charged with offences under the Arms Act. The High Court, considering settled principles and the alleged concoction of FIR, allowed bail subject to conditions regarding witness tampering and presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Prem Pasi on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Prem Pasi Vs the State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3347 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Pasi Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Chandra Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant Prem Pasi , under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2022, under Sections 5/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station- Khairabad, District- Sitapur, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and the F.I.R. has been lodged based on concocted facts. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. An alleged recovery of four country made pistols . 315 bore, six country made pistols 12 bore, unprepared country made pistols, empty and live cartridges is made from the joint possession of the applicant and other two named co-accused persons from under the tree of Babool. There is no independent / public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2022.

¶9

The Counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant has a criminal history of 10 other cases which has been explained in Paragraph 10 of the rejoinder affidavit. It is further submitted that all 10 cases have been registered by the Police and the applicant has been implicated by the Police. In nine cases, he has been granted bail by the Court below. Nine cases have been registered in the year of 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2013 and after that one case has been registered in the year 2021 which is a minor offence. It is further contended that one co-accused, Ram Lakhan, has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4487 of 2022 vide order dated 22.07.2022. It is

¶10

next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶13

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let applicant, Prem Pasi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(iii) 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

¶18

313 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶23

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶24

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 9.9.2022 Lokesh Kumar

¶28

Digitally signed by LOKESH KUMAR Date: 2022.09.14 10:48:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Pasi v. the State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Pasi v. the State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Sarvesh Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Munna Lal Gupta and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gaya Baksh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Faruk Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Moorti Verma @ Pooja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.