Allowed

Sonu Sakka v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 May 2018BAIL/17021/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicant facing murder charges. The court noted that prosecution witnesses turned hostile and admitted the applicant had no criminal history, finding sufficient grounds for release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to five conditions including not tampering with evidence.

Sonu Sakka Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17021 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Sakka Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Shahrukh, Imran Khashab and Sonu Sakka alleging that on 20.4.2017 they shot fire indiscriminately on Yaseen. He received injuries and died resultantly.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.5.2017(more than eleven months) having no criminal history. Two eye-witnesses P.W.1 Nasreen, wife of deceased and P.W.-2 Rabia have been examined before the trial Court but they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that some unknown person has killed the deceased. There is no evidence against this accused, hence he is entitled to bail. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, 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.

¶10

Let applicant Sonu Sakka involved in Case Crime No.775 of 2017, under Section 302, 120-B, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

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.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.5.2018 P.P.

Sonu Sakka v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Sakka v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Vimlesh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Udal Singh Vs State of U.P.