Allowed

Pappu Singh @ Ram Kripal Singh and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024CRLA/993/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to two appellants convicted and sentenced under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC. The court allowed the bail appeal after considering the nature of the offences, evidence infirmities, and the unlikelihood of a prompt hearing.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail by executing personal bond and two sureties; 50% of fine stayed with remaining 50% to be deposited within two months.

Pappu Singh @ Ram Kripal Singh and Another… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 993 of 2024 Appellant :- Pappu Singh @ Ram Kripal Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jay Prakash Singh Vats,Ajay Kumar Soni Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Pranesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.G.A., who is present for the State/Opp. party No1.

¶4

Admit.

¶5

Summon the trial court record.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of the opp. party No. 1.

¶7

Issue notice to the opposite party No. 2 by R.P.A.D.

¶8

Steps for service of notice be taken within 1 week from today.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as also the opp. party No. 2 may file counter affidavit within 3 weeks. 1 week thereafter shall be available to the appellant to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.

¶10

List in due course.

¶11

( Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1/2024 )

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as the Sri Pranesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

The appellant/ applicants, Pappu Singh alias Ram Kripal Singh and Barkhu Singh, seek bail in this appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge [S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act], Sultanpur, in S.S.T. No. 66 of 2000, arising out of Case Crime No. 117A of 1999, Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur, convicting and sentencing each of the appellants under Section 324/34, 323/34, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶14

Perused the impugned judgment and the pleadings of the parties.

¶15

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that maximum period of sentence awarded to each of the appellants is for offence under Section 3(1)(x), Scheduled Castes and the

¶16

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is 3 years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulation.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was also on bail during course of trial which was never misused by him. He also submits that the appellant has no criminal history. These facts have been stated in paragraphs 16 and 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has been also been submitted that the appellant was granted interim bail by the learned trial court in the impugned order itself and till now he is on interim bail. There is no likelihood of this appeal to be heard at an early date or in near future in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the court.

¶18

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.

¶19

Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of this appeal being allowed after final hearing takes place.

¶20

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

¶21

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early hearing and conclusion of appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. The bail-application is accordingly allowed .

¶22

Let the appellant- Pappu Singh alias Ram Kripal Singh and Barkhu Singh, convicted and sentenced in S.S.T. No. 66 of 2000, arising out of Case Crime No. 117A of 1999, Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur, under Sections 324/34, 323/34, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶23

It is made clear that 50% of the fine, imposed on each of the appellants, is hereby stayed and the remaining 50% of the same shall be deposited by each of the appellants within two months after they are enlarged on bail.

¶24

On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶25

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶26

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶28

Order Date :- 21.3.2024/A.Nigam

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pappu Singh @ Ram Kripal Singh and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Singh @ Ram Kripal Singh and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Haseen Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shyam Lal Gautam @ Shyam Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Budhai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Paswan vs Sudha

Indar Yadav (in Aadhar Rajindrar) vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mahendra @ Mahendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another