Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6443 of 2022

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri A.K. Shukla learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 892 of 2021 under Sections 452, 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Baghpat, District- Baghpat.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 20.01.2022.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR has been lodged by one Suneel before Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat being FIR No. 0892 on 13.09.2021 at 02:00 hours under the aforesaid sections against the applicants and 2 others and one unknown person with the allegation that on 12.09.2021 at 11 in the night relative of the complainants being Sanjeev went outside the house where the accused so named in the FIR along with the unknown person, administered beating pursuant thereto he sustained injuries. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards page no. 15 so as to contend that as per the medico-legal examination there are as many as five injuries has been sustained by the injured and complaint of pain over the body was observed. Thereafter, he refereed to annexure- 4 at page 21 of the bail application so as to contend that in the supplementary medico-legal report, injury was found to be simple in nature. He has further referred to page no. 24 so as to contend that in the statement of the injured general role has been assigned to the applicant and the specific role has been assigned to one Johny, named accused. He further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific role has been assigned to him. He further argued that the co-accused Monu has already being enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5663 of 2022 vide order dated 21.02.2022,

¶9

therefore the applicants is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He further drawn the attention of the the Court towards paragraph no. 12 so as to contend that the applicant has no criminal history and he is unnecessary languishing in jail since 04.01.2022.

¶10

Countering the said submission learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed the offense that is why his name finds plaice not only in the FIR but also in the statement of the injured, but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant does not possess any criminal history and further that the co-accused has been enlarged in bail.

¶11

Sri Anil Kumar learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the submission of the learned AGA and argued that only general role has been assigned to applicant as the same is not a ground to hold him innocent particularly when the injuries have been sustained by the injured.

¶12

Considering the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as the applicant does not possess any criminal history and the co- accused has been bailed out and looking into the nature of the 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 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). In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.2.2022 Nisha

¶24

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.03.02 14:42:33 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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P.

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

Sanghpriya Vs State of U.P.