Allowed

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019BAIL/28267/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted interim bail to an accused in a murder case following the rejection of his first application, noting an absence of direct incriminating evidence and new witness statements. The order directed expeditious trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and coercive measures for witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions and strict adherence to conditions against tampering or threatening witnesses.

Sanju Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28267 of 2017 Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri,Ravindra Kumar Srivastava,Sadaful Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J. K. Upadhya, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶4

This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.251 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 404, IPC, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat.

¶5

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail applications was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2017.

¶6

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that subsequent to the rejection of first bail application of the applicant, the P.W.-1 namely Sanjay has been examined, the relevant documents has been annexed on page no. 25 of the second bail application, which shows that as far as the Sanjay is concerned he has categorically stated that the body was recovered at the instance of co-accused namely Subhash and thus his case stands on a different footing. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of Vickey, who has been examined as P.W.-2 and he too stated the same thing. The further contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the case is of circumstances evidence, there is no direct evidence which may show the participation of the applicant in the alleged crime. The further contention is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2016 with no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2016, with no previous criminal history, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶9

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Sanju involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his 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, of which applicant is suspected.

¶15

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶17

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶19

The case of the co-accused Subhash is distinguishable from the case of present applicant, as the body was recovered at his instance.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.7.2019 VKG

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanju Bedia @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Irfanuddin Vs State of U.P.

Umashankar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Azaruddin Vs State of U.P.

Avinash @ Guddu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Hansraj Vs State of U.P.