Allowed

Sanjeev @ Sanju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022BAIL/29136/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a second bail application filed by Sanjeev @ Sanju in a case involving murder and criminal conspiracy. The judge granted bail citing parity with similarly placed co-accused who had already been released, despite the gravity of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and non-adjournment.

Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29136 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev @ Sanju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Pisawa, District Aligarh.

¶7

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25474 of 2019 (Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by another bench of this Court vide order dated 3.12.2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that there are four persons including the applicant accused in the impugned FIR. There is general allegation against all co-accused including the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to all the accused. It has further been submitted that the witnesses of fact namely Suman, Gulvir and Joginder has been discharged. It has further been submitted that the false recovery of a pipe has been shown on the pointing out of the applicant. It has further been submitted that till date the trial has not been concluded. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 16.11.2018.

¶9

It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused Rahul, Smt. Radha and Jaggan Singh @ Jagpal have already been granted bail by this court vide orders dated 15.6.2022 and 26.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 46924 of 2020, 12027 of 2019 and 11767 of 2019 respectively therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused person, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶12

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Sanjeev @ Sanju, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶17

(iv) The applicant 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 applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

¶18

(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 applicant.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 19.12.2022

¶22

¶23

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.19 17:05:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev @ Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev @ Sanju 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

Kailashnath Yadav Vs State Of Up Through its Principal Secretary Home

Krishna Kant Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Pal Baba Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shaitan Singh Vs State of U.P.