Allahabad High Court
Pappu vs State Of U.P. on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51588 of 2022
Applicant :- Pappu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Solanki
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Preet Pal Singh Rathore
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case No. 2128 of 2019 arising out Case Crime No. 622 of 2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that general role has been assigned against all the accused including the applicant in the first information report. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is also submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated for the reason that first information report under sections 147,148,149, 302 I.P.C. was lodged on 17.10.2017 by the applicant against Purushottam alias Pappy, Ompal, Vijay Kumar, Reshu and Dalveer and trial is pending. He also submitted that witness Reshu assigned the specific role to the applicant, who is not a witness of the first information report. So far as the recovery of weapon allegedly used in the crime is concerned, recovery has been shown after seven months of the incident from the open place, it is not possible that article would remain in open place during period of seven month as such. It is further submitted that there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. The enmity is admitted. It is also submitted that applicant has criminal history of ten cases, which is explained in para no.2 to the supplementary affidavit. It has been further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2019 having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per-contra, learned AGA assisted by learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that incident took place at 4.00 P.M. in the day light. The first information report was registered within five hours of the incident promptly. There is direct evidence against the applicant and specific role has been assigned to the applicant and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against him. In the first information report lodged by the applicant in his defence, informant is not made an accused, therefore, the ground of enmity is not acceptable. Applicant has criminal history of ten cases, including the case under section 302 I.P.C. which is identical in nature of crime with the present case.
In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 13.2.2023
T.S.
