Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 May 2022BAIL/4395/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant Sonu in a murder case under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. The investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits, subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-adjournment.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4395 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey 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 material on record.

¶6

The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 684 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, P.S. Baheri, District Bareilly.

¶7

As per prosecution story, while the uncle of the complainant, namely Rajesh Kumar Singh along with one Rohitash Kumar were returning to their home, they have been killed by some unknown persons.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR. His name came into light during investigation in the statement of Bhagwan Das and Anuj Kumar, who were witness of the inquest after five days of the incident and they have not assigned any specific role to the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness of the incident. It is further submitted that no any weapon has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated after six days of the incident on the basis of the statement of co accused and the statement of Bhagwan Das and Anuj Kumar, the so called eye-witness. The applicant is in jail since 10.10.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. He submits that the investigation is now complete and the charge sheet has been filed.

¶10

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. However, any observation made herein-above, will not affect the trial of the case.

¶11

Let the applicant- Sonu, 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.

¶12

(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

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.5.2022

¶21

RavindraKSingh

¶22

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.24 14:59:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Afsana Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kumari Taseerunnisha and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Maurya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kailashi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.