Allowed

Pappu v. State of Up

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024CRLA/1093/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to three appellants convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Court considered their uncritical history, high period of incarceration, and nature of roles assigned, ordering their release on bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, with undertaking to cooperate in appeals, and 50% fine deposit requirement.

Pappu vs State of Up — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1093 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Pappu Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Vikrant Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1041 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ramlal Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga,Vikrant Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

With

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 930 of 2024

¶7

Appellant :- Santram Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Tarun Jha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶9

(Order on Bail Applications)

¶10

Bail applications have been filed on behalf of accused appellants Pappu, Ramlal and Santram, who have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.414 of 2013 (State Vs. Santram & Ors. ), under Sections 302/149, 323/149, 504, 148 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.282 of 2013, P.S. Mauranipur, District Jhansi and the maximum sentence awarded to them is rigorous life imprisonment.

¶11

As per the prosecution case on 20.8.2013 informant's younger brother aged 16 years was going on a bicycle when accused Santram assaulted him with an axe. Other accused Maddu was also accused of assaulting the deceased with axe (kulhadi). Accused Pappu has been assigned role of carrying a tamancha. Accused Ramlal was also assigned the role of having an axe. Accused Balle @ Chaturbujh was assigned the role of having a revolver.

¶12

Subsequently accused Pappu has also been assigned the role of carrying a stick with him. Relying upon the testimony of witnesses the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as per above.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the main role has been assigned to accused Santram, who has no criminal history and has undergone incarceration of more than ten years as he is in jail since 16.9.2013. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 308/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P.).

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused appellants further submits that the role of assaulting the deceased with an axe is also assigned to accused Ramlal but such version has come for the first time in court. None of the other accused appellants have any criminal history. Accused Pappu and Ramlal were on bail during trial which liberty has not been misused by them. Submission is that since hearing of the appeals may take sufficiently long, as such they be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made for grant of bail, but the period of incarceration undergone by the accused appellant Santram is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the cause of death is the first crush injury which could have been caused by a axe role whereof is assigned to accused Santram.

¶16

Considering the nature of evidence placed on record as also the period of incarceration undergone by the accused appellant Santram; none of the accused appellants have any criminal history; accused appellants Pappu and Ramlal were on bail during trial which liberty has not been misused by them as also the nature of role assigned to the two accused appellants and hearing of the appeals may take sufficiently long, as such in view of the law laid down in the case of Saudan Singh(supra), without further commenting upon the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellants/applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let the accused applicants/appellants Pappu, Ramlal and Santram be released on bail in the above case on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, subject to furnishing undertaking that they will co-operate in the hearing of the appeals.

¶18

50 % of the fine imposed shall be deposited within six weeks after release and the remaining fine shall remain suspended.

¶19

On acceptance of bail bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of these appeals.

¶20

Office is directed to prepare paper book and list these appeals for hearing on their due turn.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 RA

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pappu v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu v. State of Up

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

Smt. Reenu and 4 Others vs Om Prakash and 2 Others

Prem Pasi vs State of U.P.

Neelesh Jatav vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Pal Singh vs Shri Nirmal Kumar Singh and Another

Siddhanath Bhadauriya and Another vs State of U.P.and Another

Anita Devi vs Sri Janardan Maurya