Allowed¶12

Pappu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2022BAIL/13355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.) — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13355 of 2022, order dated 4.4.2022 — Pappu v. State of U.P. — bail granted under Sections 395, 412 I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 510 of 2017, P.S. Gabhana, District Aligarh — applicant in custody since 13.04.2018 — earlier rejection by Incharge Sessions Judge, Aligarh dated 11.02.2022 — release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions and cancellation clause.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Pappu to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the imposed conditions. ¶12

Pappu Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Pappu is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 510 of 2017, Police Station Gabhana, District Aligarh, under Sections 395, 412 I.P.C.

¶5

Court's answer

The Court sees merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and holds that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed without making any observations on the merits of the case.

¶11

Key takeaways

Release is directed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no influencing witnesses, appearance before the trial court, no inducement, threat or promise); on breach of any condition the prosecution may move a bail cancellation application before the Court.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Sections 395, 412 I.P.C. — Case Crime No. 510 of 2017, P.S. Gabhana, District Aligarh. The applicant, in jail since 13.04.2018 and whose bail application had been rejected by the learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 11.02.2022, sought enlargement on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant contended false implication, planting of Rs. 400/- on the applicant to show police proficiency, absence of any independent witness to the recovery, and that the criminal history cases did not depict criminal traits or bear on the instant case; the learned AGA could not satisfactorily dispute these submissions from the record and did not contest the criminal history. Holding that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail, the Court allowed the bail application without observations on the merits and directed release on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and absence before the trial court, with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail on breach.

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13355 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Pushkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 510 of 2017 at Police Station-Gabhana, District-Aligarh under Sections 395, 412 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 13.04.2018.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 11.02.2022.

¶7

Shri Upendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is a poor daily wager. Rs. 400/- was planted on the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of the police investigators. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Recovered money belongs to the applicant. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and contends that the applicant has become a soft target and convenient scapegoat for the police

¶8

authorities. The police authorities repeatedly nominated him in a number of false cases in quick succession to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not depict any criminal traits and have no bearing on the instant case. There is no possibility of the applicant reoffending. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶9

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Pappu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence

¶14

during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.4.2022

¶20

Dhananjai

¶21

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.04.05 11:42:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pappu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijpal @ Bp Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Alam @ Sharbad Vs State of U.P.

Avrar Vs State of U.P.

Jahid Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Shakya Vs State of U.P.

Hasmeer Khan @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.