Allowed

Pappu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024ABAIL/9231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused under Section 438 CrPC. Grant was based on parity grounds as a co-accused had already obtained bail. The court approved the application with standard conditions regarding appearance, non-tampering, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Accused Pappu released on anticipatory bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including appearance in court and non-interference.

Pappu vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176516

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9231 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pappu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.927 of 2022 registered under Sections 341, 324, 308 and 504 IPC at Police StationKotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused person Rajeev @ Rajeev Kumar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.2.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1728 of 2024. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶11

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned State Law Officer. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by her.

¶12

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a

¶13

basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶15

Let the accused-applicant- Pappu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(ii). that 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;

¶18

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Ravi/-

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Kumar Singh vs State of Up

Alka Alias Alkesh Devi vs State of Up

Monu Alias Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P.

Dhananjay Maurya @ Dhananjay Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of Up