# Brajesh Singh @ Pappu Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 31
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-18
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6338 of 2024
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brajesh-singh-pappu-singh-v-state-of-u-p-52149
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section
41-A-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections
341,
308,
323,
504,
506,
286-The
punishment
for
the
offences
in
the
impugned FIR is less than seven years, the
provisions of section 41-A Crpc shall be
strictly followed as per guidelines of the
Apex Court judgment in case of Arnesh
Kumar-directions issued. (Para 1 to 7)

B. In the case of Arnesh Kumar, the Apex
Court examined the application of section
41-A of the CrPC, which outlines certain
procedures before making an arrest. This
decision
strike
a
balance
between
preventing misuse of law and protecting
the rights of those accused. Failure of
these directions could result in the police
officer being held in contempt of court.
(Para 7)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bih. & ors. (2014) 8 SCC
27

## Text

6 All. Brajesh Singh @ Pappu Singh Vs. State of U.P.
31
the IPC can be said to have been made
out." (Emphasis supplied)

11. I have carefully perused the
contents of complaint, statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well
as
impugned
order.
As
referred
in
Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay Kumar Singh
(supra) and Salib @ Shalu @ Salim
(supra), in order to make out a case of
extortion, one of the essential ingredient is
to deliver any property or valuable security
being under threat by Complainant to
accused, whereas in the present case such
ingredient is absolutely missing as it was
not a case of Complainant that he actually
handed over Rs. 5 lacs to accused.

12. The nature of allegation is that
Complainant was put under threat of fear of
death that he has to pay Rs. 5 lacs to run
the business of Gutkha but admittedly no
amount was paid. A reference be taken of
statement
of
Complainant
and
other
witnesses being part of present order that,
"बंदूक तान दी और बोले कक अगर अपना गुटखा चलाना हो
तो मुझे 5,00,000 रूपये हर महीने दो".

13. The words used in Section 387
IPC, i.e., "in order to the committing of
extortion" is used for an act committed
during act of extortion and for that act of
extortion has to be concluded in terms of
Section 383 IPC.

14. In aforesaid circumstances, since
in the present case act of 'extortion' was
not concluded as Rs. 5 lacs was not paid,
therefore, offence under Section 383 IPC
was not made out and consequently offence
under Section 387 IPC was also not made
out. [See, Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay
Kumar Singh (supra) and Salib @ Shalu
@ Salim (supra)]

15. The outcome of above discussion
is that, ingredients of Section 387 IPC are
not made out, therefore, in view of A.M.
Mohan (supra), it is a fit case where in
exercise of inherent power present criminal
proceedings can be quashed.

16. In the result, application is
allowed. Impugned summoning order dated
28.08.2023 as well as entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 (M/s Balaji
Traders Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agarwal
vs. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan), under
Section 387 IPC, Police Station Kotwali
Orai, District Jalaun, pending in the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jalaun at
Orai, are hereby quashed.

17. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 31
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6338 of 2024

Brajesh Singh @ Pappu Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajendra Prasad Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.
Criminal Law - Bail - Abetment of Suicide -
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section
439 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section
306 - Abetment of Suicide - Section 107 -
Abetment of a Thing - In the suicide note,
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the deceased had written that although he
had returned a substantial amount of
money along with the interest, he was
being harassed by the applicant and that if
anything happened to him, the applicant
should be held liable - It was argued on
behalf of the applicant that no case u/s
306 IPC was made, as there was no
abetment at the instance of the applicant
as defined u/s 107 IPC - Held - prima
facie, the abetment as defined u/s 107
IPC is missing at the instance of the
applicant - Applicant entitled to bail (Para
6)
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Mariano Anto Bruno & anr. Vs Inspector of
Police; 2022 SCC Online SC 1387

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Yogeshwar Saran Srivastava
who appears for the informant as well as
learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in
Case Crime No.148 of 2024 under section
306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Wazirganj, District
Gonda.

3. In terms of the FIR registered under
section 306 IPC, it was alleged that the
husband of the informant used to run a
jewellery shop and kitchen utensils. It was
also stated that he has taken certain money
advanced from some persons and he had
also returned substantial amount along with
the interest. It was also stated that on
account of harassment for recovery of the
money, the husband of the informant had
died and his body was recovered along with
a suicide note. The said suicide note is on
record as Annexure no.5, wherein the
deceased had expressed that although he
had returned the substantial amount of
money along with the interest, he was
being harassed. It was also stated that if
anything
happened
against
him,
the
applicant should be liable for that. The
cause of death, as per the postmortem
report, is ante-mortem firearm injury.

4. In the light of the said material, the
counsel for the applicant argues that even
accepting the said suicide notice to be
gospel truth for the sake of argument, no
case can be made under section 306 IPC as
there was no abetment at the instance of the
applicant as defined under section 107 IPC,
as such, the applicant may be enlarged on
bail. The criminal history as pointed out by
the learned AGA are minor offences.

5. The counsel for the informant
strongly opposes the bail application by
arguing that the bail application of the coaccused is pending being Bail Application
No.5880 of 2024 and this court had
directed the FSL verification of the suicide
note vide order dated 30.05.2024.

6. Considering the submissions made
at the bar, prima-facie in terms of the FIR,
the allegations are of commission of
offence under section 306 IPC. From the
material on record including the suicide
note, prima-facie the abetment as defined
under section 107 IPC is missing at the
instance
of
the
applicant
as
such,
considering the law as explained in the case
of the Mariano Anto Bruno and another
vs. Inspector of Police; 2022 SCC Online
SC 1387 and finding that abetment as
defined under section 107 IPC is missing,
the applicant who is in custody since
17.04.2024 and the criminal history are of
minor offences, the applicant is entitled for
the bail. Thus the bail application is
allowed.
6 All. Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
33

7. Let the applicant Brajesh Singh
Alias Pappu Singh be released on bail in
aforesaid first information report number
subject to his furnishing a personal bond
and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/-
(Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall execute
a bond to undertake to attend the
hearings;

(b) The applicant shall not
commit any offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused or suspected of the
commission; and

(c) The
applicant
shall
not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 33
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4459 of 2024

Vijay Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Neelam Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section
41-A-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections
341,
308,
323,
504,
506,
286-The
punishment
for
the
offences
in
the
impugned FIR is less than seven years, the
provisions of section 41-A Crpc shall be
strictly followed as per guidelines of the
Apex Court judgment in case of Arnesh
Kumar-directions issued. (Para 1 to 7)

B. In the case of Arnesh Kumar, the Apex
Court examined the application of section
41-A of the CrPC, which outlines certain
procedures before making an arrest. This
decision
strike
a
balance
between
preventing misuse of law and protecting
the rights of those accused. Failure of
these directions could result in the police
officer being held in contempt of court.
(Para 7)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bih. & ors. (2014) 8 SCC
273

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. This petition seeks issuance of a
direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered as
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0098 of 2024 under
Sections 341, 308, 323, 504, 506 and 286
I.P.C., Police Station Maheshganj, district
Pratapgarh.

3. The punishment for the offences
mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. is less
than seven years.