Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25726 of 2021 Applicant :- Narendra Singh Yadav @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Tarun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh Tomar
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
In spite of stop order dated 12.8.2021 no counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the first informant. Thus the Court proceeds to hear the matter.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Narendra Singh Yadav @ Pappu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 70 of 2021, under Sections 306, 506 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Barua Sagar, District Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is named in the F.I.R. but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that allegation that the applicant used to call to the deceased on her mobile phone and used to trouble her while she was living in her matrimonial house due to which she got harassed and committed suicide, is false and incorrect. It is argued that as a matter of fact the father of the deceased had taken Rs.1,50,000/- from the applicant to purchase a tractor and on asking for return of the same, the first informant himself used to talk to the deceased using phone of the applicant as such there were certain calls from the phone of the applicant to the phone of the deceased, but the applicant never talked to her with any ill-intention or bad motive. Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court for the same.
It is further argued that the F.I.R. is lodged with unexplained delay of 12 days. It is argued that there is no instigation and abetment by the applicant and even the applicant has no mens- rea to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued while placing para-21 of the affidavit that even previously the applicant was involved in one case being Case Crime No. 215 of 2016, under Sections 376, 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Court. Copy of the said order is annexed as annxure no. 10 to the affidavit. It is argued that the said case was also a false case in which the applicant was involved. The applicant is in jail since 28.3.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is an allegation of the applicant calling up the deceased while she was living in her matrimonial house for a good period of time, due to which she committed suicide. It is argued that calls between the phones of the applicant and the deceased are even admitted by the applicant which also gets fortified by the C.D.R. which has been taken by the Investigating Officer, copy of which is annexure no. 9 to the affidavit. It is further argued that even previously the applicant was involved in another case being Case Crime No. 215 of 2016, under Sections 376, 302, 201 I.P.c. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun though he was released on bail, but the same is his criminal antecedents. It is argued that as such the applicant is involved in the present case and there is no reason for falsely implicating the applicant. It is prayed that the prayer for bail thus be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. The electronic surveillance clearly speaks of calls between the applicant and the deceased which is even admitted in the argument and in the pleadings of the bail application. The next alarming feature is that there is a serious case under Sections 376, 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act in which the applicant is involved previously. The present case is a case of misuse of bail after involvement and grant of bail to the applicant in the previous case.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence, gravity of offence and nature of the case in which the applicant is previously involved, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.)