# Ramveer @ Pappu v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 32
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-02-07
- **Case number:** CRL. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 359475 of 2016
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Ifaqat Ali Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramveer-pappu-v-state-of-u-p-44458
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Conviction under section 302, 307 IPC
and 3/25 of Arms Act. Bail Application
pending appeal. Period of prolonged
detention
suffered
though
invites
leniency by Courts, yet, no straight
jacket formula to grant bail on that
count.

Appeal ready for arguments. Reluctance to
argue the appeal. The nature of crime, the
gravity of offence, the sufficiency and nature
of evidence available, the background of the
offender and other circumstances relevant. -
Bail rejected. (Para 3)

Reluctance on the part of counsel whose
keenness appears to be confined only with
regard to procurement of bail. (Para8) (E-2)

## Text

32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission being necessary for any
consolidation
proceedings
being
in
progress at the relevant point of time.

14. Lastly, the learned Senior
Counsel argued that the mandate of
Order XLI Rule 31 CPC was not
adhered to by the first appellate court.
On this aspect of the matter, this Court
is not convinced with the submissions
put forth, rather, the first appellate court
has thrashed out the relevant points of
determination
and
in
my
humble
consideration,
the
appellate
court
judgement does not fall on the strength
of the argument advanced by learned
counsel.

15. The exhaustive submissions
made by learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of the appellant are thus unconvincing and
both the substantial questions of law
framed above are answered in negative
and against the appellant-plaintiff.

16. The second appeal thus fails and
the same is hereby dismissed.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.
THE HON'BLE IFAQAT ALI KHAN , J.

CRL. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 359475 of 2016
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6137 of 2016
AND
CRL. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 359419 of
2016
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6138 of 2016

Ramveer @ Pappu ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P . ...Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A. Conviction under section 302, 307 IPC
and 3/25 of Arms Act. Bail Application
pending appeal. Period of prolonged
detention
suffered
though
invites
leniency by Courts, yet, no straight
jacket formula to grant bail on that
count.

Appeal ready for arguments. Reluctance to
argue the appeal. The nature of crime, the
gravity of offence, the sufficiency and nature
of evidence available, the background of the
offender and other circumstances relevant. -
Bail rejected. (Para 3)

Reluctance on the part of counsel whose
keenness appears to be confined only with
regard to procurement of bail. (Para8) (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J. & Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan, J.)

1. These two applications relate to
two connected appeals arising out of
common
judgment
and
order
of
conviction and, therefore, are being
disposed of by the common judgment. 2.
Counter affidavits filed in both the
appeals are taken on record.

3. The aforesaid bail applications have
been moved on behalf of appellants
Ramveer @ Pappu and Rajveer @ Ashok
Kumar seeking their release on bail who
have been convicted and sentenced in S.T.
No.293 of 2008 (State Vs. Rajveer @
Ashok Kumar & others) arising out Case
Crime No.58 of 2008, u/s 302, 307 I.P.C.
and in S.T. No.295 of 2008 (State Vs.
Ramveer @ Pappu) arising out of Case
Crime No.80 of 2008, under Section 3/25 of
1 All. Ramveer @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P.
33
Arms Act, Police Station Kishni, District
Mainpuri.

4. Heard learned counsel for
appellants and learned A.G.A.

5. Submission of counsel for
appellants is that co-accused Om Prakash
has been released on bail and, therefore,
on the ground of parity the appellants also
deserve to be released on bail. Further
submission is that the firing, said to have
been
resorted
to
by
the
accused
appellants, was made from a higher
pedestal which makes the nature of injury
as has been caused to the deceased and
injured improbable and, therefore, on the
ground of this medical inconsistency, the
truthfulness of the prosecution case
becomes suspect. It was also contended
that it has not been specified in the
evidence as to which of the appellants is
the author of which specific injury. Period
of detention was also pointed out. Bail has
been sought on the aforesaid grounds.

6. Perused the record in the light of
submissions made at the Bar.

7. Learned A.G.A. while opposing
the bail has drawn attention of the Court
to the order passed with regard to coaccused Om Prakash who is the father of
two appellants before us and it has been
shown that the order passed with regard to
co-accused apparently appears to have
been guided apparently by the advanced
age of co-accused which was said to be
above 80 years. In such circumstances,
the
principle
of
parity
is
simply
inapplicable with regard to the present
appellants. It was also shown that both the
appellants were armed with fire arms.
Appellant Rajveer was carrying a double
barrel gun while appellant Ramveer was
having a country made pistol. There is
categorical evidence that both these
appellants used their respective fire arms.
Attention was also drawn to the post
mortem examination of the deceased and
also the medical examination of injured
witness
Virendra and it has been
emphasized that the nature of injuries as
had been caused to two persons lends
clinching corroboration to the use of those
weapons. Victim Virendra has received a
number of fire arm injuries having
multiple entry wounds. Injury no.1 said to
have been received by victim Virendra
shows that it was a fire arm injury spread
in the area of 32 x 24 c.m. While injury
no.2 indicates that it was a fire arm
wound in an area 30 x 8 c.m. Injury no.3
indicates two fire arm entry wounds while
injury no.4 indicates an entry wound
having a dimension of 0.3 x 0.3 c.m.
Injury no.5 was in an area of 22 c.m. x 4
c.m. It was submitted that the nature of
injuries is such that the survival of victim
Virendra was just an act of providence
while the accused did whatever was
within their power to do in order to cause
the death of Virendra. It was also shown
that the injury found on the dead body of
deceased was again having a number of
entry wounds which resulted in the death
of deceased. Pellets were also recovered
from the body of deceased. Submission is
that there is absolutely no inconsistency
between the medical examination and the
ocular version of the incident. Contention
in this regard is wholly lacking of any
factual basis. It was also submitted that the
evidence produced by the prosecution
shows that a number of persons indulged in
the act of indiscriminate firing which killed
one man and caused serious injuries to
another and in such circumstances of the
incident it is impossible to watch the
trajectory of projectiles and it will be
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unnatural to except that witnesses would be
in a position to vouchsafe as to which fire
arm wound was caused by which accused.
The accused came together with the
common intention and having same object
in their mind and after resorting to such
indiscreet firing they went away together
and the act of one accused would also make
in such circumstances the other accused
liable vicariously for the same offence. The
evidence against the appellants is clear,
cogent and unassailable that they are
authors of the injuries caused to the
deceased as well as to the victim. The
number of entry wounds and the number of
accused are also not inconsistent with each
other and it is certainly not a case in which
one may argue that the number of assailants
was far more than the number of injuries
caused to the victim side showing their false
implication.

8. It may be observed that ordinarily
this Court leans liberally in favour of
accused in cases where the period of
detention is prolonged but the same alone
cannot be applied as a straight jacket
formula in all cases without keeping in
perspective the nature of crime, the gravity
of offence, the sufficiency and nature of
evidence available, the background of the
offender
and
several
other
relevant
circumstances. This is much more so
because this Court has expressed its
inclination and openness to have final
hearing in the matter. But ironically enough
there appears reluctance on the part of
counsel in this regard whose keenness
appears to be confined only with regard to
procurement of bail. It is certainly not a
matter where it may be said that as there is
no likelihood of early hearing or conclusion
of this appeal therefore, the accused should
be released on the ground of longer
detention. It is indeed disappointing to see
this unhealthy trend insidiously creeping in
and gaining ground that complete reluctance
to argue the appeal finally is being
displayed at the bar which in its turn
contributes not only to the prolongation of
detention period of accused but also to the
rise of staggering pendency of appeals. We
cannot lend our countenance to such kind of
reluctance on the part of appellant or his
legal representative nor can we allow the
same to be used as a contrivance to procure
bail in the name of prolixity of detention
period to which they themselves are
contributory.

9. Therefore, in this background so
far as the bail matter is concerned,
looking to the nature of offence, its
gravity and the evidence in support of it
and the overall circumstances of this case,
this Court is of the view that the
appellants have not made out a case for
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the
appellants is rejected.

10.

It
is
clarified
that
the
observations, if any, made in this order
are strictly confined to the disposal of the
bail application and must not be construed
to have any reflection on the ultimate
merits of the case.

11. (Order on Appeal)

12. Office is directed to prepare the
paper
book
and
list
for
hearing
immediately thereafter.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.