Allowed

Sunny v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018BAIL/4985/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail in the second bail application of Sunny accused of murder and conspiracy. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with several additional conditions regarding presence, conduct, and ensuring availability for trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties with specific conditions of appearance and conduct.

Sunny Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4985 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sunny Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This is a second bail application of the applicant in Case Crime No. 409 of 2014 (S.T. No. 1017 of 2014), Under Sections 302, 506 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli with a prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

The second bail application has been pressed on the ground that the first informant Pramod Kumar, who was an eye witness and had disclosed the complicity of the applicant along with co-accused Rajeev, has not supported the prosecution case in the trial as PW-1 and after considering the statement of PW-1, this Court, in Bail Application No. 15079 of 2015, has granted bail to co-accused Rajeev whose case is at par with that of the present applicant. It has thus been submitted that the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. It has next been submitted that the applicant had no previous criminal history, although, subsequent to the present case, the applicant has been implicated in one case under Section 25 Arms Act. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant has been in jail since 14.07.2014 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released

¶10

on bail.

¶11

Let applicant Sunny be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

(v) 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 sailesh

Sunny v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raja @ Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bijendra Singh Alias Bijendra Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijaynath Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Qasim Hasan Vs Sheo Nath and 14 Others

Mahesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others