Allowed

Pappi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023BAIL/47948/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to an applicant accused of murder, causing death and injuries. The court notes the long delay in hearing and the applicant's custody duration. Apposite observations from the Supreme Court are cited to justify granting bail while imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering and ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each.

Pappi Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47948 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Pappi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman,Kuldeep Saxena,Vijay Tripathi,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashwani Kumar Rai,Virendra Kumar Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Virendra Kumar Jaiswal, counsel for the informant as well as Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in S.T. No.22 of 2016, Case Crime No.432 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have fired indiscriminately at the family members of the informant thereby causing the death of his father Shyam Singh at the spot and injuring Mahesh, Nilesh, Poonam and Pooja on 26.07.2015.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that bail application is pending before this Court since 2017 and it was not being disposed of as such, he was forced to seek the refuse of the Apex Court whereby it has been directed that the bail application may be decided expeditiously within a period of six weeks. Learned counsel has further stated that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and the case of the applicant was distinguished in Criminal Bail Application No.28607 of 2017, whereby it has been stated that it has come up in the statement of injured witness Mahesh that the firearm shot of the applicant had hit the deceased person. Learned counsel has further stated that as the said role was distinguished, the other co-accused persons were enlarged on bail as there were general allegations with respect to them.

¶11

Learned counsel has further stated that the said statement of the injured Mahesh recorded by the Investigating Officer does not stand corroborated as the witness has stated in his examination in court that he had not told the Investigating Officer about the fire of the applicant hitting the deceased person. Learned counsel has further stated that on this ground, the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has further stated that the two injured witnesses have been examined and they have reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR and the role of the applicant is no different to the other co-accused persons. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.08.2015. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned Senior Counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that already the role of the applicant was distinguished by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.28607 of 2017 and the applicant has criminal antecedents to his credit, thus the applicant is not entitled for bail. Although, they could not dispute the fact of the statement of PW-2 Mahesh recorded in court.

¶13

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 , has observed as under:-

¶14

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Pappi involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following

¶17

conditions.

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

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

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(v) 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.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Ravi Kant

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pappi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar @ Bantu Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Narpat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimla Vs State of U.P.

Clara Tom Kinson Vs State of U.P.