Allowed

Satish Kumar @ Pappu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2023BAIL/53737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by a 72-year-old applicant alleged in a false implication case. The court granted bail with personal bond and two sureties, imposing strict conditions on trial attendance and expediting the trial within six months under Article 21 and citing Dataram Singh.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties (one family member) subject to strict conditions including attendance and trial expedition.

Satish Kumar @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53737 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Kumar @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Faiz Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that when the applicant demanded his own money, then he has been falsely implicated in the present case just to create pressure. It is further submitted that the applicant is 72 years of age. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2022. The applicant has a criminal history of one case which has been properly explained by him.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, the age of the applicant, the statement of the victim, 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

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Satish Kumar alias Pappu, involved in Case Crime No. 334 of 2022, under Sections 354K, 323, 506 IPC and Section 9/10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station Bhamora, District Baeilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount, one of which shall be of his family member, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶11

(i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) 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 313 Cr.P.C. If

¶15

in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.3.2023

¶20

Kumar Manish.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Kumar @ Pappu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar @ Pappu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Pradeep Kumar @ Shekhar Vs State of U.P.

Amit Shakya and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Bharadwaj Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Mathur Vs State of U.P.

Alok Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Munshi Lal Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another