Single judge allowed bail to applicant accused of murder and affray, finding actual commission attributed to co-accused and noting prima facie satisfaction of charge.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to undertaking not to seek adjournments and presence in court on fixed dates.
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. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38088 of 2018 Applicant :- Shukla Sonkar @ Laxmi Shanker Sonkar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is falsely implicated in this case and has been deliberately roped in this case by high-handedness of police and the informant because the applicant was having criminal history of several cases falsely thrust-ed upon him by the police.
Bare perusal of the FIR and the statement of the informant-Raja Ram Pal shows that, role of firing has been attributed to coaccused Vishal Ghodi, Rishabh and Shivam Yadav. Their role is distinguishable from that of the present applicant, being confined to conspiracy only. No doubt the applicant has criminal antecedent of as many as twelve cases apart from the present one, but in two major cases, he has been acquitted and three cases have been falsely slapped on him by the police under Gunda Act and three cases relate to petty and trivial offences.
Learned counsel further claimed that the role of the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused-Nikhil @ Tuttal, who has been admitted to bail vide order of this Court dated 27.6.2018, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21960 of 2018 (Nikhil @ Tuttal vs. State of U.P.) , copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure No.17 to the bail application. Learned counsel further claimed absolute parity of the present applicant with the aforesaid co-accused, except the criminal history, which has been well elaborated and has been explained in various paragraphs of the affidavits annexed in support of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.12.2017 and he has suffered more than eleven months of detention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he does not disputed the grant of bail to the co-accused-Nikhil @ Tuttal and has not disputed the fact that the statement of Raja Ram Pal imputes main role in the commission of crime to the three other co-accused and not to the present applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant- Shukla Sonkar @ Laxmi Shanker Sonkar involved in Case Crime No.996 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Section-7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Chakeri, District - Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.10.2018 S Rawat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given findings of actual commission of the crime by others.
Whether reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses justifies granting bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nikhil @ Tuttal vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Nikhil @ Tuttal vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21960 of 2018
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shukla Sonkar @ Laxmi Shanker Sonkar
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
