Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Dhirendra Pratap Singh @ Pammi vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 November, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16965 of 2019 Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh @ Pammi Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman,Brajesh Kumar Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Govind Saran Hajela,Ram Prakash Dwivedi
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. as well as perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the applicant for the first time came into light on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused- Bhola. Role of providing safe passage to the main accused has been assigned to the applicant. Although at the time of arrest of the applicant, country made pistol was recovered by the police but this country made pistol has no concern with the presence incident. The applicant has no criminal history. He further submits that the case of the present applicant is on better footing than the case of Co-accused Krishnaveer Singh, who has been granted bail by this Court on 20.11.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48969 of 2019 and therefore the applicant may be granted bail on the basis of better footing and parity. He further submits that there are no chances of applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and is in jail since 15.1.2019.
Sri Alok Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Govind Saran Hajela, learned counsel for the complainant submits that applicant is main perpetrator of the crime and he has also active participation in the crime.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant but contended that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may misuse the liberty of bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Dhirendra Pratap Singh @ Pammi involved in Case Crime No. 11 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Anuj Singh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Dhirendra Pratap Singh @ Pammi vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 November, 2019
Judges
  • Suresh Kumar Gupta
Advocates
  • Nasiruzzaman Brajesh Kumar Solanki