Allowed¶13

Sanjay @ Sanju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2022BAIL/43659/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.), CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 43659 of 2022, order dated 5.12.2022 — Sanjay @ Sanju v. State of U.P. — bail allowed in Case Crime No. 454 of 2011 under Sections 394, 302, 411 IPC (jewellery shop murder and robbery, PS Chhawani, District Basti); applicant not named in FIR, named via co-accused Raj Kumar's statement; in jail since 01.06.2011; release on personal bond and two sureties with trial-conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sanjay @ Sanju to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 454 of 2011 (Sections 394, 302, 411 IPC, PS Chhawani, District Basti) on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount, subject to the conditions set out in the order regarding attendance and conduct during trial. ¶13

Sanjay @ Sanju Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sanjay @ Sanju should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 454 of 2011, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Chhawani, District-Basti, during pendency of trial.

¶6

Court's answer

The applicant has made out a case for bail and the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) presence before the trial court on each date, failing which proceedings under Section 229-A IPC may follow; (iii) if bail is misused and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC may be initiated; and (iv) personal presence on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed as any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Case Crime No. 454 of 2011, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Chhawani, District-Basti — applicant not named in FIR; name surfaced for the first time in statement of co-accused Raj Kumar, on whose pointing out recovery of silver jewellery was allegedly shown — applicant in jail since 01.06.2011 — criminal history of two cases ending in acquittal — considering nature of offence, material on record, complicity and severity of punishment, Court held applicant made out a case for bail — bail application allowed; applicant to be released on personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount, subject to conditions including presence under Section 229-A IPC consequences, Section 82 Cr.P.C./Section 174-A IPC consequences on misuse, and presence at framing of charge and Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination — observations confined to disposal of bail application.

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43659 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay @ Sanju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sajiwan Prajapati,Pramod Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.S. Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Sanjay @ Sanju with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.454 of 2011, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Chhawani, District-Basti during pendency of trial.

¶7

An FIR was lodged on 24.04.2011 by the informant Smt. Mamta Soni against unknown persons alleging therein that on 24.04.2011 at about 08:00 a.m., few persons entered the jewellery shop of her husband and shot him dead taking away jewellery items from the shop.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced for the first time in the statement of co-accused Raj Kumar before the police. On pointing out of co-accused Raj Kumar, the police has shown recovery of silver jewellery items from the applicant which is a false and planted recovery as the same has been recovered on the pointing out of coaccused Raj Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that applicant is a very poor person and has approached the Court after delay of so many year as he is not in a position to bear the expense of engaging lawyer.

¶9

It is next argued that the applicant has criminal history of two cases in which, he has been acquitted. The said fact is mentioned in para 33 of the application. There is no possibility of his fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2011. Accordingly, he requests for bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the

¶12

learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. 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.

¶17

(iv) 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 absence of the applicant are 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

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 merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.12.2022 Madhurima

¶20

Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.12.08 10:36:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay @ Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay @ Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddi Devi@ Asha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Rupesh Seth Vs State of U.P.

Ramashankar @ Bichchu Vs State of U.P.

Kalu @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.