Allowed

Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2022BAIL/3545/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi in a criminal trial concerning excise and IPC offences. The applicant, not named in the FIR, was implicated only via a co-accused's custodial statement, which the applicant sought to discount.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to not tamper with evidence and not commit other crimes.

Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3545 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Yadav,Bhupendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.113 of 2021, under Sections 304, 328, 272 I.P.C. and Section 60A/63 Excise Act, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj, during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and during the course of investigation, co-accused Shivbhushan @ Kariya Pasi was arrested and in his confessional statement, the name of the applicant has surfaced. It is further submitted that the statement of the co-accused Shivbhushan @ Kariya Pasi could not be believed in view of the bar contained under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act as the confessional statement of the co-accused has been recorded while he was in the custody of police.

¶9

It is further submitted that no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant in the FIR and apart from the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence or material available which may connect the applicant with the alleged crime.

¶10

It is further submitted that the co-accused persons of the crime, namely, Shivbhushan @ Kariya Pasi, in whose statement, the name of applicant had surfaced, Brijesh Kushwaha, Vinay Patel, Vimlesh Devi @ Nanachi and Manoj Kumar Bhartiya have been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide

¶11

orders 15.12.2021, 17.12.2021 and 11.01.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39830 of 2021, 4626 of 2021, 2940 of 2021, 2718 of 2021 and 28159 of 2021 respectively.

¶12

It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 22.03.2021 and charge-sheet has already been submitted. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Shivbhushan @ Kariya Pasi, coaccused persons including Shivbhushan @ Kariya Pasi have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court and the case of the instant applicant appears to be on better footing than those who have been admitted to bail, criminal history of three cases shown against the applicant has been adequately explained and he is in jail in this case since 22.03.2021. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶16

Let the accused/applicant- Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.4.2022 Vivek Kr.

¶24

Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR Date: 2022.04.07 16:52:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi 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

Binda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Satyabhama Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shamsher Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vishnu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Phool Singh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P and Another