Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2023BAIL/14602/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 302 and 201 IPC being tried in the court below, the High Court dismissed bail opposition by the State despite finding motive but lack of cogent evidence and noted that suspicion cannot take place of proof, holding the applicant was entitled to bail on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in equal amounts.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14602 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey,Sandeep Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 328 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant under Sections 302, 201 IPC and it appears that applicant made accused in the present matter on the basis of suspicion as he used to talk with the daughter of the informant since deceased and earlier on 04.11.2022 some altercation took place between applicant and brother of the deceased.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and merely on the basis of suspicion applicant has been made accused in the present matter and this fact is evident from the FIR itself and during investigation Investigating Officer could not collect any cogent evidence and only could collect that number of time applicant used to talk with the deceased and merely on this ground, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶9

He further submits that there is not even any evidence against the applicant of last seen and except the suspicion and motive there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was having motive and two days before the incident he made some hot conversation with the deceased but could not dispute the fact that except the suspicion there is no other evidence against the applicant on record which can connect him in the present crime.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶12

record of the case.

¶13

Although, it appears that applicant was having motive to commit murder of the daughter of the informant and there is strong suspicion against him and it also reflects from the case diary, which has been produced by learned AGA during the course of argument that applicant used to talk with the deceased and except this there is no other evidence on record against the applicant.

¶14

The law is settled that even strong suspicion cannot take place of proof, therefore, in my view, applicant 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 - Sonu 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

Order Date :- 24.4.2023 AK Pandey

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY 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?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ahasan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Parsan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others