Bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Kannauj. The court allowed bail in a murder case citing circumstantial evidence and prior bail of co-accused without expressing a view on the merits of the case.
Applicant to be released on bail on raising a personal bond and two sureties each with standard 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. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7674 of 2018
Applicant :- Sonu Singh @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay,Jai Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1218 of 2016 under Sections 147, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial.
As per FIR, the prosecution's case is that the son of the first informant Annu @ Shiv Singh was having relationship with Salma (wife of the Jakeel) clandestinely. When the first informant told Jakeel that he should take his wife back, he was not ready for the same and demanded four 'bighas' of land in his name, which the first informant was not capable to provide him. Thereafter, in the intervening night of 20/21.12.2016, the first informant had gone to his tubewell for providing meals to Salma and his son and when next day in the morning he went to his tubewell, at about 4-5 am, he found that the lock of the door of tubewell was broken by the brick and inside, his son Annu @ Shiv Singh and Salma were found dead. He had expressed apprehension that Isha, Khilauna and Iqbal might have killed them .
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the sole evidence which has been gathered by the Investigating Officer is that of village Pradhan Pooran Lal Dohre, in whose statement, he expressed doubt that in this occurrence the first informant himself might have hand and has also pointed out some circumstantial evidence in that regard of last seen. It is further contended that the co-accused Mahendra Singh and Golu have been bailed out by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Accused-applicant has been falsely implicated. Applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.9.2017. If he is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of bail, but has not controverted the aforesaid fact.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant Sri Jag Narayn and
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
In view of above arguments, looking to the fact that there is only circumstantial evidence and only expression of doubt is made by the witness Pooran Lal Dohre, which is alleged to have the basis on which the accused is reported to be involved in the present occurrence and that co-accused Mahendra Singh and Golu have been granted bail, taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence and period of detention, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Sonu Singh @ Sonu involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 22.3.2018 A.P. Pandey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the undertrial proceedings for murder under Sections 147, 302, 34 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sonu Singh @ Sonu
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
