Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023BAIL/13411/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused in aSection 306 IPC case involving suicide. Relying on his love relationship with the deceased and lack of evidence of abatement regarding a second suicide, the court granted bail with personal and surety bonds without commenting on trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard bail conditions regarding appearance, tampering with evidence, and criminal activity.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139613

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13411 of 2023 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawankumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA, for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.1005 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Powayan, District Shahjahanpur during pendency of the trial.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under Section 306 IPC and according to the FIR, marriage of the deceased was settled with one Soni but after his tilak, applicant sent some indecent videos and photographs of the girl Soni to deceased and threatened him that if he will perform marriage with Soni then he will eliminate him and thereafter on 24.12.2022 deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substances.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the FIR it is apparent that there was absolutely no abatement of applicant on the basis of which it could even be inferred that deceased committed suicide. He further submtis that actually applicant and Soni both loved to each other but the marriage of Soni was settled with deceased and under deep distress and affection of Soni, applicant sent his and her some photographs to the deceased and after that deceased committed suicide, therefore, applicant cannot be held responsible.

¶9

He further submits that unfortunate part of this case is that after three days of suicide of deceased, Soni also committed suicide and, therefore, applicant has also lost his love and even at this stage, there is no evidence against the applicant of the abatement with regard to suicide of Soni on record.

¶10

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 31.12.2022, i.e., for the last about seven months.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that due to abatement of applicant, two persons committed suicide and if he would not have sent indecent videos and photographs of Soni to the deceased no.1 then neither Durgesh (deceased no.1) nor Soni would have been committed suicide, thereafter, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no evidence of abatement against the applicant.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

Although in the present matter two persons committed suicide and FIR of the present case was lodged with regard to suicide committed by Durgesh (deceased no.1) and after three days of his suicide, the girl Soni also committed suicide but from the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and even from the record it reflects that applicant and Soni (deceased no.2) loved to each other and when her marriage was settled with deceased no.1 (Durgesh) then only with intention that the marriage of Soni should not be solemnized with deceased no.1 (Durgesh) applicant sent some alleged indecent videos and photographs of Soni and him to deceased no.1 (Duresh).

¶14

Therefore, considering the love affairs of applicant with Soni (deceased no.2) and the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, applicant, who is in jail since December, 2022, is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Sandeep Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 SKM

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseem Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramnayan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gore Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramautar Vs State of U.P.

Baliram @ Buletin Vs State of U.P.