Allowed

Sonu and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2021BAIL/35043/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to applicants Sonu and Ashu in a trial under the IPC. Citing parity with co-accused already released by a coordinate bench, the court imposed strict conditions ensuring presence at trial, setting aside outrages, and framing charges, along with specific requirements for order verification due to judicial closure.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Sonu and Ashu were released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and furnishing sureties within 'a month after normal functioning of courts are restored', subject to strict attendance cond

Sonu and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35043 of 2021 Applicant :- Sonu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶4

By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in case crime no.0193 of 2021, under Section 147, 149, 332, 353, 186, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Karari, District-Kaushambi are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶5

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that there are as many as seven named accused persons who have been attributed general role of assault out of which co-accused Mohd. Harim and three others persons were admitted on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.09.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34270 of 2021. In this continuation, parity has also been claimed by saying that the case of the applicants stand on exact footing qua the abovesaid co-accused persons who have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and applying the principal of parity, the applicants are also liable to be released on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2021.

¶6

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that case of the applicants stand on exact footing qua the other co-accused persons who have been admitted on bail, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶8

Let the applicants, Sonu and Ashu who are involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶9

(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶10

(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN

¶11

CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶12

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶13

(iv) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

¶15

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

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶18

1. The applicants 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.

¶19

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

¶20

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 20.10.2021 Sumit S

Sonu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kuamr Siddharth Vs State of U.P.

Paramveer @ Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jabir Vs State of U.P. and Another