Allahabad High Court
Pappu @ Rambabu vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2015
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? A.F.R.
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8297 of 2014
Applicant :- Pappu @ Rambabu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Tandon
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 31.1.2012 by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Jayashree Tiwari.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record in the light of submission made at the bar.
It appears from the record that subsequently after the rejection of the bail application by this Court, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was thereupon pleased to pass the following orders:-
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, taking note of the fact that the High Court has rejected his bail application on 31.1.2012. Considering the fact that now eleven months have elapsed the petitioner is free to renew his application for bail before appropriate court. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the proposed petition."
Learned counsel for the applicant has once again tried to further elaborate upon the merits of the case and has tried to contend that the facts and circumstances of the case are such that there is very thin line to seperate this case from being a case of committing deliberately the offence of culpable homocide or being a case of an unfortunate sheer accident. The counsel has tried to high light the circumstances which according to him would reduce this case only to a case of mere accident. It was further submitted by the counsel that as the police was chasing the driver he was awestuken and was in a state of extreme paranora and it was the state of extreme fear psychosis of applicant which ultimately resulted in this unfortunate accident which took the life of deceased. The counsel has fairly submitted that there can not be any vindication about the manner in which the applicant conducted himself and he ought to have stopped and surrendered before the police officers who were acting under the colour of their office but the pragmatic aspect of the case is, according to counsel, that at times even innocent persons behave as if they are guilty and the incident in question is the result of similar circumstances. It has been further submitted by the counsel that though the bail application was rejected on 31.1.2012 and more than three and half years have elapsed but the trial has yet not been concluded. It was further submitted by the counsel that though the Apex court has declined to grant bail itself to the applicant but it transpires from reading in between the lines of the order that the Apex Court has expressed its concern and consciousness both about the drawn out period of time which has elapsed since the rejection of bail by this Court. The counsel has further submitted that if not on any other ground then at least on the basis of prolonged detention of the applicant in jail, the applicant may be released on bail on whatever conditions this Court feels appropriate to impose upon him. It is pointed out that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.8.2010.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Looking to the over all the facts and circumstances of the case and specially keeping the period of detention of applicant in jail and also the order of Hon'ble Apex Court, this court feel inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant-Pappu alias Rambabu, involved in Case Crime No.527 of 2010, u/s 304 I.P.C., P.S.-Jarif Nagar, District- Budaun be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 11.8.2015
Rkb
