Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2019BAIL/48244/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the applicant challenged his confinement when named in a co-accused's statement for a murder. The court allowed bail, noting insufficient direct evidence and lack of accusation in the FIR, imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering with witnesses and ensuring trial cooperation without forming a final opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions: (1) no tampering with evidence, (2) no intimidation of witnesses, (3) cooperation with trial, (4) attendance at court dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48244 of 2019

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR was lodged by Shiv Ratan stating therein that a dead body of unknown is lying in his field. During inquest the dead body of the deceased was identified by one Sanjay Kumar. The name of applicant came into light in the confessional statement of co-accused Arjun. In the confessional statement of co-accused Arjun it has come that gun shot injury was caused by him. The role of catching hold to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant. It has further been submitted that applicant had not caused any injury to the deceased. Except the confessional statement of co-accused there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. False recovery of country made pistol and two live cartridges have been shown from the possession of applicant. In fact, the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 27 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant is in jail since 13.12.2017.

¶8

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Sonu involved in Case Crime No. 1190 of 2017, under section 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶12

He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses

¶13

and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶14

He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 14.11.2019 Masarrat

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

Punuwa Vs State of U.P.

Madan Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Manisha Vs State of U.P.

Ishu Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P.