Allowed

Pappu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2023BAIL/58523/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail in a criminal case involving injuries and cross-FIRs. Relying on Satendra Kumar Antil, the Court held that the applicant made out a case for bail, balancing the nature of the offence with Article 21 rights. The application was allowed subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58523 of 2022 Applicant :- Pappu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Som Veer

¶3

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Somveer, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Pappu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.0101 of 2020, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Raya, District Mathura during pendency of the trial.

¶6

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that both the parties involved in the offence and lodged FIR against each other and received injuries and it cannot be said that who was aggressor at that time, though in the present case applicant has been assigned role of causing injury but it cannot be said that injury has been caused with intention to kill. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant could not dispute that it is a cross case. As per as medical examination of injured from applicant's side injured was sent for medical examination on 03.04.2022.

¶8

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant, Pappu, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and

¶10

two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 25.1.2023 SKD

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY 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?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bachchraj Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Amit Agarwal @ Koko Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Mahnoor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Kusum Batra Vs State of U.P.

Smt Sarasvati and Another Vs State of Up and Others