Dismissed

Vindeshwari Sonker and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2022ABAIL/2726/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refused anticipatory bail to two applicants accused of assault and criminal intimidation where one victim sustained grievous injuries, but disposed of the application with directions to seek regular bail in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail was refused; the application was disposed of with a direction to move regular bail in the trial court.

Vindeshwari Sonker and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2726 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vindeshwari Sonker And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Sharma,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been moved by the applicants- Vindeshwari Sonker and Kishan Sonker , in Case Crime No. 0057 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur, with the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. One of the applicant namely Vindeshwari Sonker is aged about 61 years and, therefore, it is highly improbable that he will indulge into assault as shown by the informant in the first information report.

¶8

It is further submitted that in the incident two injured persons namely Deepak Sonker and Munna Sonker are shown to have been injured and simple injuries are shown to have been sustained by them, however, in the X-ray of injured Deepak Sonker right side of frontal bone has been found fractured and who is the author of the fatal injury is not apparent and could only be decided during the trial.

¶9

It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant without arresting them as the offences alleged against the applicant were punishable up to 7 years of imprisonment. However, the applicants are having an apprehension that when they will appear before the trial court the disposal of their regular bail application may take time and in the meantime they will be detained in the prison and, therefore, they are having apprehension of being arrested/detained by the subordinate court as the accusation against them are pertaining to the non-bailable offences.

¶10

It is further submitted that one of the accused person namely Chandra Bhan Sonker has also been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 31.05.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 23032 of 2019. The applicant undertakes to co-operate in the trial and, thus, protection from arrest be granted.

¶11

It is also submitted that since the allegations against the applicants are pertaining to the offences punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment, the applicants are entitled for the benefit of F.I.R. propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in MANU/SC/1024/2021.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that in the first information report allegation of 'marpeet' with lathi-danda has been assigned to the instant applicants and the other co-accused persons. Three persons are reported to be injured in the incident. One of the injured namely Deepak Sonker has sustained grievous injuries.

¶13

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicants, thus, the prayer so far as it is concerned with the providing of protection from arrest is hereby refused . However, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant is disposed of with the observation that if any appropriate application is moved by the applicants before the trial court, within a reasonable time, the same shall be disposed of by the trial court having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others (supra).

¶14

Order Date :- 11.4.2022 Praveen

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.04.11 18:05:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vindeshwari Sonker and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindeshwari Sonker and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Asif and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Junaid Kamal @ Junna Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhanraj Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akbar Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another