Allahabad High Court
Chetendra @ Pappu vs State Of U.P. on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41128 of 2020
Applicant :- Chetendra @ Pappu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra,Mohammad Khalid,Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Rohan Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arjun Singh Solanki
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
There is allegation of attempt to murder against the applicant in the FIR. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that only a bullet has just touched the left side of the chest of the injured and no internal damage was caused to the injured. The applicant is in jail since 13.09.2020 and has criminal history of 9 cases. It has been informed that first witness of the prosecution has just appeared and his examination-in-chief is being recorded. There is no possibility of early conclusion of trial.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Chetendra @ Pappu, involved in Case Crime No. 55 of 2020, under Sections- 307 and 504 IPC, Police Station- Sikandarpur Vaishya, District- Kasganj, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
Rohit
