Dismissed¶10

Pappu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024/2202/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pappu; bail application rejected; rape of minor girl aged about 10 years; POCSO Sections 3/4; IPC Sections 376, 504, 506; Case Crime No. 152 of 2019; P.S. Ramsanehi Ghat; District Barabanki; second bail application; first bail application rejected 07.09.2022; custody since 03.07.2019; trial to conclude within four months; liberty to revive bail plea; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; 2024:AHC-LKO:56913.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; directions issued for day-to-day examination of remaining witnesses, production of witnesses by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, conclusion of trial preferably within four months, and filing of a witness-count application by the prosecution within two weeks; liberty reserved to revive the bail plea after four months if the trial is not concluded. ¶10

Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Pappu should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ramsanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the gravity of the offence (alleged rape of a child aged about 10 years, corroborated by the medical report on record), the Court did not deem it proper to grant bail and rejected the second bail application.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Trial Court directed to ensure the remaining witnesses are examined on a day-to-day basis without unnecessary adjournments; Superintendent of Police, Barabanki directed to produce the remaining witnesses before the trial Court without fail; prosecution directed to file a specific application stating how many witnesses it intends to produce within two weeks.

¶11

Key takeaways

Trial Court to endeavour to conclude the recording of evidence and conclude the trial preferably within four months; the applicant would be at liberty to revive his bail plea after four months in case the trial is not concluded.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — Pappu (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2202 of 2023, decided 21.8.2024 by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:56913) in Case Crime No. 152 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ramsanehi Ghat, District Barabanki. Considering the gravity of the offence — rape of a child aged about 10 years, corroborated by the medical report — and the applicant's custody since 03.07.2019 (first bail application having been rejected on 07.09.2022), the Court declined bail. Trial Court directed to examine the remaining witnesses day-to-day and conclude the trial preferably within four months; Superintendent of Police, Barabanki to produce the remaining witnesses; prosecution to file a witness-count application within two weeks; applicant at liberty to revive the bail plea after four months if the trial is not concluded.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56913

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2202 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Trivedi,Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ramsanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.

¶8

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 07.09.2022.

¶9

4. Perused the report sent by the trial Court, wherein it has been stated that five prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the rest are to be examined. The applicant is in custody since 03.07.2019. The medical on record corroborates the allegation of rape of the child aged about 10 years.

¶10

5 . Considering the gravity of the offence, I do not deem it proper to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

¶11

6 . The trial Court is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are examined on a day to day basis without giving any unnecessary adjournments to the either of the party.

¶12

7 . The Superintendent of Police, Barabanki is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are produced before the trial Court for their deposition without fail.

¶13

8 . Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki for its compliance.

¶14

9 . The trial Court will endeavour to conclude the recording of evidence and conclude the trial preferably within a period of four months.

¶15

10 . The prosecution will also file a specific application as to how many witnesses the prosecution intends to produce in the trial within a period of two weeks from today.

¶16

11 . The applicant would be at liberty to revive his bail plea after four months, in case, the trial is not concluded.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Arun

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pappu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others

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

Jai Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Ashlendra Pratap Singh @ Dabbu Singh (in Fir Ashlendra @ Dabbu Singh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Amit Savita @ Anshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Santlal Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Imamuddin @ Nanguttu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others