Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2019BAIL/26283/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, who was falsely implicated in a case involving theft, cheating, and forgery. The court noted that the applicant was not arrested at the spot and co-accused had already been granted bail, constituting a fit case for bail with a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each under specified conditions to ensure fair trial and prevent loitering.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26283 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that nothing incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his instance. He further submitted that the applicant was not arrested at the spot. He further submitted that the other co-accused, who were arrested at the spot and incriminating material were recovered from them, have been admitted to the concession of bail by another Benches of this Court by orders dated 22.05.2019 and 31.05.2019 respectively passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.21353 of 2019 (Bale @ Bal Kishan) and 23033 of 2019 (Jeetu) respectively, copy whereof have been annexed on page nos.24 and 26 respectively. He claims parity. He submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.05.2019 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶8

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused and also the fact that the co-accused, Bale @ Bal Kishan and Jeetu have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶9

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Sonu involved in Case Crime No.279 of 2019, under Sections 411, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C., P.S. New Agra, District Agra, be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶15

v) The applicant 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.7.2019 R./

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Mona Vs State of U.P.

Govind Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Farman Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.