Allowed

Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022BAIL/50528/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed bail objections and allowed bail to the applicant. The Court noted overcrowding due to the pandemic and found the case fit for bail release based on the criminal history and nature of the offense.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to prevent evidence tampering and ensure trial cooperation.

Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50528 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Munne Lal, 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- Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 504 IPC registered at Police Station- Shamli, DistrictShamli.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 7.9.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Vineet Kumar against the applicant one other and 2-3 unknown before Police Station- Shamli, District- Shamli being FIR no.0102 of 2021 on 5.3.2021 at 17:30 hours under Sections 307, 504, 34 regarding commission of offence with an allegation that on 5.3.2021 at 4.00 p.m. the cousin brother received phone call by that he wanted to have conversation near Bhagat ji Sweets and the brother of the complainant went in a motorcycle wherein as per prosecution case Sunny resorted to gut shot firing and the injured sustained injuries. He has drawn the attention of this court towards page 33 of the bail application so as to contend that in the statement of Vishal now role has been assigned to the applicant and the other co-accused named in the FIR had resorted to use of country made pistol for sustaining injury. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that even from the narration of the allegation in the first information report as well as in the statement of the informant specific role had been assigned to co-accused Sunny and thus it is an improvement which is sought to be

¶9

engineered just in order to falsely implicated the applicant. He has referred to paragraph 20 of the application so as to contend that Case Crime No.333 of 2018, under Section 307 IPC, Case Crime No.334 of 2018, under Section 25 Arms Act, was lodged against the applicant and the applicant on the strength of annexure-10 has sought to argue that he has been bailed out in both cases and thus there is nothing against the applicant in so far as the issue relatable to the said case is concerned. He has also drawn the attention of the court towards page 39 and 42 of the bail application wherein the co-accused Deepak Malik @ Bhagwan Singh and Akshay have been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29147 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21481 of 2021 as well as also referred to the order dated 3.9.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28092 of 2021 wherein Sunny has also enlarged on bail. Thus, the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 4.8.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicant, as such he has been proceeded in the case in question, but he could not dispute the fact that the criminal history has been explained and the coaccused have been enlarged on bail.

¶11

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, and criminal history has been properly explained and is languishing in jail since 4.8.2021, 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi 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 :- 14.2.2022 piyush

¶25

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.17 12:42:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi 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

Samruddin Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Awadhesh Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Binda Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer Singh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.