Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar Baranwal v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2021BAIL/3570/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, the court refused to rejects the bail plea and granted bail. The court noted the case relies on circumstantial evidence and the co-accused were already on bail. Hence, the applicant was enlarged on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Departed from jail and released on personal bond and two sureties of like amount subject to ancillary conditions.

Sanjeev Kumar Baranwal Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3570 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Baranwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brij Lal Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the informant are virtually connected through video conferencing and learned A.G.A. is personally present in Court for the hearing of this case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicantSanjeev Kumar Baranwal with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 153 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Saraimir, District Azamgarh.

¶8

The FIR version is that accused the incident took place on 15.8.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 19.8.2020 making allegation that the victim was married with accused-applicant in the year 1999 and from their wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born. The accused-applicant was running a shop and the same was running in loss because of which, a quarrelsome atmosphere was in the house. The accused persons who have been named in the FIR used to harass the deceased and beat her. About which, the deceased informed the informant. On the relevant date, the information was given to the younger brother of the informant that the deceased has committed suicide. Informant and other family members reached there and found the dead body hanging. The other persons residing there stated about killing of the deceased after harassment.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased was married with the accused-applicant more than 20 years back and they were having two sons and one daughter. There was no reason for the accused-applicant for committing murder of the deceased. Further submission is that other two named persons Sandip Baranwal and Ravi Baranwal have already been granted bail by this Court and bail orders are annexed with this bail application. There is no criminal history of the accused-applicant. Only on the basis of suspicion, the

¶10

FIR has been lodged after four days. It is a case of false implication. The accused-applicant is prepared to furnish the surety and bond and is giving undertaking that he will cooperate in trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application and main contention is that in the post mortem report, the cause of death has been shown to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation and that shows that the accused-applicant has committed murder of the deceased. The accused-applicant is the husband of the deceased. Therefore, it has been submitted that the accused-applicant does not deserves to be released on bail. His bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶12

Considered the submissions of both the sides. The accusedapplicant was married with the deceased before 20 years. Two co-accused who are real brother of the accused-applicant have already been granted bail by this Court. The case is based on no eye witness account and is totally based on circumstantial evidence and the post moretem report. The credibility of the post mortem report is yet to be checked during the trial and the circumstances are yet to be established during trial. Therefore, considering the fact that two similarly situated co-accused against whom accusation has been made have already been enlarged on bail and the accused-applicant is in jail from the last 10 months, I find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that applicant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶17

verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.6.2021 Jaswant

Sanjeev Kumar Baranwal v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Baranwal v. State of Up and Another

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

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Trimal Vs State of U.P.

Lalmati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Akram Vs State of U.P.