Pappu @ Karan Singh vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court found merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It was held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The Court explicitly stated that it was making no observations on the merits of the case. The bail application was allowed, and the applicant, Pappu @ Karan Singh, was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below. Specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, appearing before the trial court on fixed dates unless exempted, and not inducing, threatening, or promising any person to dissuade them from disclosing facts or tampering with evidence. The prosecution was granted liberty to move for bail cancellation in case of breach of any condition.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Pappu @ Karan Singh, the applicant, seeking release from jail in Case Crime No. 220 of 1997, registered at Police Station Karahal, District Mainpuri, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant has been in jail since December 23, 2021. His bail application was previously rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, on December 18, 2021. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was falsely implicated, had left for Punjab for livelihood, and experienced a communication gap with his counsel, leading to his absence from trial proceedings. The State, represented by the learned AGA, did not contest the applicant's criminal history as disclosed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 220 of 1997 under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, considering his absence from trial proceedings and the alleged communication gap. Contentions of the Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated and was absent from trial due to a communication gap with his counsel and his departure to Punjab for livelihood. He asserts he is a law-abiding citizen and undertakes to join court proceedings. His counsel also argued that the disclosed criminal history has no bearing on the instant case. Contentions of the Opposite Party/State: The learned AGA could not satisfactorily dispute the submissions made by the applicant's counsel from the record and did not contest the criminal history disclosed by the applicant.