This single judge court granted bail to the applicant in a murder case involving a missing person, directing him to furnish a personal bond and local sureties.
Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount subject to specific 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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26730 of 2019
Applicant :- Ankit @ Sonu Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List revised.
Case is taken up in the revised call. The learned counsel for the applicant is present but the learned counsel for the informant is not present.
Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. for the State today in the Court, is taken on record
Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ankit @ Sonu Sharma with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 637 of 2018, u/s 364 I.P.C., P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar, during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name was brought on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and that too before the police in custody. The F.I.R. was lodged in the form of a missing report on 3.6.2018 for missing of the deceased on 26.5.2018 by Mukesh Kumar against unknown person with this contention that his nephew Kapil alias Prashant after the death of his father was residing at the informant's house along with his mother. On 26.5.2018 at 3.00 P.M. Kapil received a telephonic call on his cell phone and in response to it he went and when asked he said that he was going to drain. When he did not come back he was searched but his mobile phone was switched off, therefore, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons. It is further argued that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. Apart from the extra judicial confession before the Police, there
is nothing on record to show the involvement of the applicant in this case. It is further argued that the co-accused persons, namely, Paras, Tarun Solanki and Vikas @ Chhotu have already been granted bail by the another Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2019, 15.05.2019 and 24.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6465 of 2019, 49706 of 2018 and 45394 of 2018, respectively, copy of which orders have been passed on to the Court today are kept on record and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.10.2018. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
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 :- 8.8.2019/JK Yadav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case involving a missing person chroot should be allowed on satisfying the conditions of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherExplained¶13
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Ankit @ Sonu Sharma
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
