Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Panni Lala @ Pawan Jindal vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|05 April, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43784 of 2020 Applicant :- Panni Lala @ Pawan Jindal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Arya Suman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Samarth Sinha and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No. 207 of 2020, u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Surajpur, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 18.3.2020.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is one of the main accused person out of five named and 2-3 unknown persons by one Satpal Singh, who lodged the F.I.R. on 10.3.2020 at about 19.54 hours for the incident said to have been taken place at about 14.10 hours on the same day. The long and short of the prosecution story is that the applicant and the deceased were at the loggers head and were facing a civil litigation against each other. On the fateful day, the applicant came to the deceased's place with a Scorpio car having 7-8 persons in it. All the persons were armed with fire arms and knives. They have indiscriminately assaulted upon the deceased by their respective weapons. The deceased has raised alarm and after hearing his screaming, Anil and Sunil, his sons, came to rescue their father and in this transaction of firing, Anil lost his life whereas Sunil has sustained four injuries over his person.
I have perused the post-mortem report of Anil, who has sustained three gun-shot injuries over his person, whereas Sunil has sustained four injuries out of which two are incised wounds.
Learned counsel for the applicant has floated his argument that a general and omnibus role has been attributed to all the assailants. It is not clear that which of the assailant is carrying which weapon and who is the real author of this incident. It is further contended by counsel that the police, after seven days of the incident, has made a recovery of alleged Tamancha from the possession of the applicant of which there is no independent witness making the entire recovery of Tamancha as a doubtful proposition. Taking into account the generality of the allegation alongwith a suspicious recovery of Tamancha, the applicant is liable to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 18.3.2020 having no criminal antecedents.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, 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 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 - Panni Lala @ Pawan Jindal, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) 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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra- ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 5.4.2021 Vibha 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

Panni Lala @ Pawan Jindal vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
05 April, 2021
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Rajiv Lochan Shukla Arya Suman Pandey