Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102464

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17643 of 2021

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Narendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 213 of 2020, under Sections 302, 34 of IPC, Police Station Chhajlait, District Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased Mamta who got married with the applicant on 12.02.2015. She committed suicide on 06.06.2020. It is submitted that in the post mortem report hyoid bone was found intact while the cause of death is ascertained throttling. It is also contended that both the things cannot happen together so there is no reason that deceased died due to throttling. During course of the trial PW-1-Agwan Singh, brother of the deceased, has not corroborated the prosecution version and turned hostile. PW-2 Sukhpal has also not corroborated the prosecution version and turned hostile. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.06.2020 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶10

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶11

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶12

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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.

¶13

Let the applicant Sonu in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶15

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(4). 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Mohit

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA 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

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Pushpa Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kavita Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Suman Vs State of U.P.