Pappu vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52305

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6116 of 2025

Applicant :- Pappu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Pappu seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 538 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 06.12.2024 by Dinesh Gautam against the applicant and four other co-accused persons alleging therein that on 05.12.2024 at about 11:00 p.m. Vijay Kumar entered in the house of his younger brother Anil Gautam, which was told by his wife after which his family members went to his house to make a complaint wherein the accused persons came and assaulted them with lathi and danda, as a result of which his brother Ramesh Ram, Bhabhi Reena Devi, nephew Ankit Kumar and niece Gunja have received injuries. They have been taken to hospital where during treatment his brother Ramesh Ram died.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and four other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that there is no specification of role of the accused persons. It is further submitted that the present dispute appears to be without pre-meditation and without any serious motive. It is further submitted that co-accused Smt. Mewati Devi has been granted bail

¶11

by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11118 of 2025. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and is in jail since 10.12.2024.

¶12

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and role has been assigned along with other co-accused persons.

¶13

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that common and general role has been assigned to the applicant and four other co-accused persons. The co-accused Smt. Mewati Devi has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Pappu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance

¶20

with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Manoj

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV 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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Fateh Khan vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar @ Ghasi vs State of U.P.

Seratunnisha vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Alias Monu vs State of U.P.

Aziz vs State of U.P.

Waseem vs State of U.P.