Allowed

Sonu Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2018CRLA/373/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court allowed a criminal appeal against the bail rejection order of the Sessions Judge, setting aside the impugned order and directing the release of the appellant on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Sonu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 373 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Sonu Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Kesari,Abhishek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 25.9.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge/S.C./S.T. Act, Varanasi in Bail Application No.3220 of 2017(Sonu Sharma vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 395 of 2017 under Section 363, 366, 504 IPC and 3(1) (Da),3(1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jansa, District Varanasi whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that FIR was lodged against Sonu Sharma, Sandeep and Mangru alleging that on 29.8.2017 at about 1 P.M. Sonu Sharma enticed away daughter(14 years) of complainant Nirmala Devi and when she went to complain in his house Sandeep and Mangru abused her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since 31.8.2017(more than five months) having no criminal history and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence; there was no independent witness; victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P. stated that Sonu has done nothing bad with her.

¶9

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

¶10

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 25.9.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶11

Let appellant Sonu Sharma involved in Bail Application No. 3220 of 2017(Sonu Sharma vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 395 of 2017 under Section 363, 366, 504 IPC and 3(1)(Da),3(1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jansa,

¶12

District Varanasi 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:1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 6.2.2018 P.P.

Sonu Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Sharma 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

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

Suraj Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Ramim @ Sheru Vs State of U.P.

Dhaniram Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Raghunath Vs State of U.P.