Allowed

Sonu @ Shailendra Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023ABAIL/12947/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR involving Sections 306, 504, and 506 IPC. The applicant was released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence or witnesses and appearing in court.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each amount.

Sonu @ Shailendra Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12947 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu @ Shailendra Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2021, under Sections 306, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Nagla Khangar, District - Firozabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It is further submitted that since the incident has taken place on 16.05.2021 and the son of informant committed suicide through train at railway track, but the FIR in regard to said incident has been lodged without assigning reason about such inordinate delay and appears to have lodged after thought with cold blood. It is also submitted that in fact the applicant is not involved in commission of the alleged offence, but because of old dispute between the family of applicant and opposite party no. 2 and after committing suicide by the son of the informant, the informant alleged to have concocted a false story and lodged FIR against the accused persons including the applicant in order to implicate them in such criminal case with mala fide intention. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the

¶9

anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sonu @ Shailendra Verma , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶18

That 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 or to any police officer;

¶19

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the

¶20

trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 SK Srivastava

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu @ Shailendra Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Shailendra Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Prince Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Xxxx- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahseen Vs State of U.P.