In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the Court allowed the release of the applicant, Sunder, on the reasoning that his role was indistinguishable from a co-accused who had already been granted bail, and no fresh evidence justified continued detention.
Applicant released on bail to furnish personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20219 of 2018
Applicant :- Sunder Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Amar Pal and three unknown persons alleging that on 13.12.2017 they killed Soni(18 years), sister of complainant with Palkati(Kharpali) and 'Daranti' in the field of sugarcane. She received injuries on her neck and died resultantly. Subsequently, next day on 14.12.2017 names of Surender, Mohit and Sunder were surfaced on the statement of complainant Krishna Kumar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Surender has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.5.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18917 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. One affidavit filed by Doli, she stated that Amarpal killed the deceased. The applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 21.12.2017(about five months). Criminal history of of the applicant has been properly explained. There is no recovery at the pointing out of this accused. Specific role of assault has been assigned to coaccused Amar Pal and recovery was also made at the pointing out of Amar Pal. There was no independent witness. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
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 and the case of present applicant is identical to co-accused Surender who has been enlarged on bail.
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.
Let applicant Sunder involved in Case Crime No.751 of
2017, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kandhala, District Shamli 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:
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 A. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given his similarity to a co-accused who has already been granted bail.
Whether the applicant's case for bail is made out considering the facts, nature of allegation and period of custody.
Sunder
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
