Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2018CRLA/2711/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application. The High Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, held that the appellant had made out a case for bail given his lack of criminal record, the absence of independent prosecution witnesses, and his prolonged custody, thus allowing the appeal and granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Sessions Judge rejecting bail was set aside. Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2711 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Sonu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present on behalf of complainant even in the revised list.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 26.4.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Hapur in Bail Application No. 380 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.80 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Dhaulana, District- Hapur whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶8

According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged on 8.3.2018 (after 18 days of incident) against the appellant alleging that on 20.2.2018, at the time of marriage celebration in harsh-firing Gaurav received gun shot injury on his stomach.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 10.3.2018 (more than six months); having no criminal history, there is no independent witness against the appellant. Some quarrel was made between appellant and complainant due to that reason, he has been falsely implicated in this case. F.I.R. was lodged after 18 days of incident without explaining any delay. The entire prosecution story is absolutely false, baseless and concocted. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. There is no legal evidence against the applicant and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that appellant has no criminal history.

¶11

For the foregoing discussions, 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 appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.4.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let appellant Sonu involved in aforesaid case be released

¶13

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:-

¶14

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

¶15

2.The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

5.The appellant 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Office is directed to send the lower court record to the concerned court immediately, if it has been received.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.9.2018 A. Singh

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sanehi @ Terhwa Vs State of U.P.

Sangeeta and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Raghubir and Others Vs State of U.P.

Anil @ Ganja Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Alias Mukul Pathak Vs State of U.P.