Allowed

Rajneesh Kumar @ Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020BAIL/13116/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court allowed bail in a case involving an attempt to cause injury by weapon. Application was heard via video conferencing due to urgency and pendency. The applicant alleged false implication after the informant retracted prob.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond without sureties till courts resume normal functioning; sureties to be furnished within a month thereafter.

Rajneesh Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13116 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajneesh Kumar @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Order on the Exemption Application

¶6

Application is allowed.

¶7

Order on the Bail Application

¶8

In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.

¶9

Despite time granted to the learned A.G.A. to file counter afÏdavit on 30.6.2020, no counter afÏdavit has been filed.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. through Video Conferencing.

¶11

It is submitted that applicant has been implicated by his father in the First Information Report alleging that he has caused injury to his cousin (brother) by 'Spade'. From the injury report it does not appears that any internal damage has been caused to the injured.Subsequently informant has given application that he has falsely implicated the applicant and he was not involved in the incident. The applicant is in jail since 22.11.2019 and has no criminal history.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Rajneesh Kumar @ Sonu , who is involved in Case Crime No. 1071 of 2019, under Section 307 I.P.C, Police Station-Kotwali , District- Muzaffar Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶15

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶20

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 Atul kr. sri.

¶25

Digitally signed by JUSTICE SIDDHARTH Date: 2020.07.07 10:10:53 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajneesh Kumar @ Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Kumar @ 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Soni Vs Union of India

Arun Vs State of U.P.

Om Pal Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Vs State of U.P.

Mithun Vs State of Up

Paras Chaudhary Alias Bunty Vs State of Up