Allowed

Ajay Kumar @ Sonu v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2022BAIL/4956/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4956 of 2022 filed by Ajay Kumar @ Sonu. The High Court granted bail, noting the general role assigned to the accused in the FIR, his lack of criminal record, and jail overcrowding due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on his personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to specific conditions.

Ajay Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4956 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Miss. Sandhya Chaturvedi, holding brief of Sri Abhishek Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shravan Kumar Ojha, the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Ajay Kumar @ Sonu for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, registered at Police Station- Chaubepur, District- Varanasi.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 5.1.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Shiv Kumar s/o Sharda Prasad against the applicant before P.S. Chaubepur, District Varanasi being FIR no.0211 on 25.4.2020 at 14:56 hours under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC relatable to the commission of offences with an allegation that the applicant along with three nominated accused had joined a gang and thereafter attacked the son of the complainant being Vishal.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention towards the statement of Vishal being the injured wherein general role has been sought to be assigned to the applicant and no specific role has been assigned. She has further drawn the attention towards annexure 13 at page 74 of the bail application so as to contend that even prior to the lodging of the present FIR on 13.4.2020 at 23.17 hours, a first information report has been lodged by Sri Kanchan before Police Station- Chaubepur, District- Varanasi being FIR No.0194, under Sections 506, 504, 323 IPC against 4 accused inclusive of the informant, whose name has been shown to be Shivashray. He has thus argued that it is nothing but a retaliation and a counterblast at the instance of the complainant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question in order to settle the score. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph-32 so as to contend that he does not possess any criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 22.11.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail. However he could not dispute the fact that only general role has been assigned in the first information report as well as in the statement of the injured and that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, only general role has been assigned in the first information report, applicant has no criminal history and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Ajay Kumar @ Sonu involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

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

¶22

Any 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.

¶23

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.2.2022

¶25

piyush

¶26

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.25 14:56:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Kumar @ Sonu v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar @ Sonu v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogendra Kumar @ Chotu Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Lakkad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanghpriya Vs State of U.P.