Allowed

Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2022BAIL/5678/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application in a Section 306 IPC suicide case. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents and granted bail subject to standard conditions including personal bond, sureties, and appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to undertakings regarding tampering, adjournments, and court appearance.

Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5678 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Singh,Dharmendra Pratap Singh,Ravindra Pratap Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar,Gulab Anand,Shashank Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gulab Anand, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A is taken on record.

¶7

Compliance report filed by learned A.G.A is also taken on record.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant and one co-accused that they used to mentally torture the deceased as a result of which she committed suicide by way of hanging.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He had no concern with the deceased or the informant. The ingredients for constituting offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.12.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma , involved in

¶13

Case Crime No. 1677 of 2021, under Section- 306 IPC, Police Station- Loni, District- Ghaziabad, 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 not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v) 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 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 5.9.2022 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.05 17:47:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premdas Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Hoti Vs State of U.P.

Hari Shanker and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mahfooj Alam Vs State of U.P.

Tazeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P.