Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022/9290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a bail application under Section 306 IPC involving allegations of suicide due to humiliation. The court allowed bail after considering the nature of antemortem injuries, parity with co-accused on bail, and pre-existing Supreme Court precedent, emphasizing principles of Article 21 and lack of coercive need.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Sonu was enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance, non-tampering, and cooperation with trial.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9290 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Singh,Ajeet Kumar,Armendra Pratap Singh,Farakshan Khatoon,Farooq Ayoob,Pankaj Bala Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amrendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant Sonu , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in F.I.R. No.0515 of 2020 under Section 306 IPC, Police-Station Kotwali, District Barabanki.

¶7

As per the prosecution case in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the accused persons Monu, Rakesh and Sonu had been jointly harassing the daughter of the informant namely Prachi Kashyap whose age is 16 years for a period of 3-4 months. It is also alleged that they were saying that they had in possession photos and videos of his daughter which will be made in public and she will be defamed. On 20.07.2020 the wife of the informant took her daughter and his son to her parent's house at Deva Road where the accused persons also followed and again started obscene activities. It is alleged that due to this intimidation and threat extended by the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide by jumping from the roof, hence, the F.I.R. was lodged.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. No charge sheet under IT Act has been filed, hence, the entire allegation made in the F.I.R. that photos and videos of the deceased were used to intimidate and threat were being found false in the investigation. It is also contended on behalf of the applicant that the following antemortem injuries have been received by the deceased:-

¶9

"1. A contusion of size of 5 cm x 4 cm present on LT side of chest in front and 8 cm above LT nipple.

¶10

2. A contusion of size 4 cm x 3 cm present on sternum, 11 cm below underline sternum of fractured.

¶11

3. A contusion of size 25 cm x 7 cm present on lower front of vertebral column, 21 cm below cervical spine.

¶12

4. An abraded contusion present in the area of 8 cm x 8 cm on lateral side of RT thigh, 14 cm above RT knee joint.

¶13

5. An abrasion of size 1 cm 0.5 cm present on medial aspect of LT grade toe. on opening - all injuries no. 1, 2, 3, 4 ecchymosis present."

¶14

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that injury no. 1 is on thoracic vertebrae and from this injury the death could not have been caused. Likewise injury no. 2 is again sternum which is also on thoracic part. Admittedly no ribs have been fractured and therefore merely by this injury again the death cannot be caused. Regarding injury no. 3 which is 21 cm below the cervical spine, it is also on thoracic vertebrae. This injury also not resulted into death of the deceased. The other two injuries i.e. injury no. 4 and 5 are not on vital part, hence, cannot lead to death.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is very strange that the deceased committed suicide by jumping from roof, however, still no head injury or any fracture of ribs or sternum or any other bone has taken place.

¶16

He further submits that she has received injuries on anterior and posterior both sides of her body. He also submits that perusal of the postmortem report depicts that injured has received injuries on anterior and posterior both side of ribs of her body which are not possible by jumping from roof. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, It is contended that no ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. are found against the present applicant. It has been submitted that it appears from the antemortem injuries that the deceased has been done to death by someone by using soft cloth and pillow and in such a scenario no local signs of violence can be found. It is lastly submitted that had their being fractures caused during life then sings of effusion of blood, laceration of muscles pouring out of the lymph, formation of granulation tissue and callus would have been present, however, these signs are absent in the postmortem report.

¶17

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that charge sheet in this matter has been filed. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.07.2020 without having any criminal history.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused, namely, Rakesh Yadav and Monu Kashyap, who have assigned the same role alongwith the applicant in the FIR have also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 25.11.2021 and 25.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.10745 of 2020 and 8804 of 2020 respectively.

¶19

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the applicant is not the worse footing that of the co-accused persons, who had already been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant be also enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶20

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 22.07.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶21

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

¶22

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the medical report as well as cause of death

¶23

and also considering the facts that the case of the applicant is not on worse footing than that of the coaccused, who have been enlarged on bail and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

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

¶25

Let the applicant, Sonu , involved in F.I.R. No.0515 of 2020 under Section 306 IPC, Police-Station Kotwali,District Barabanki, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶26

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶27

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶32

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶33

(8) 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.

¶34

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶35

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶36

Order Date :- 16.2.2022 dk/

¶37

Digitally signed by DEVENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.02.17 18:03:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jagat Pal Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shri Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dhirendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.