Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19678 of 2023

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Yadav,Raj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 487 of 2015, under Sections 302, 393, 34 IPC, Police Station Kandhala, District Shamli, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant was disclosed by witnesses Virendra Singh, Krishan Pal Singh and Pooja Tomar on the basis of extra judicial confession alleged to be made by the applicant before the witnesses. The informant in his statement has also stated that the applicant made extra judicial confession before him. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of the ulterior motive and he has nothing to do with this case. Nothing clinching material has been collected by the investigating officer against the applicant except confessional statement of coaccused and extra judicial confession before the informant and other witnesses. There is no witness against him and false recovery of country made pistol of 15 bore has been shown against the applicant. It is next submitted that co-accused Rahul has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 28.02.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 36637 of 2016. It has been further submitted that during trial, prosecution has examined 3 witness as P.W. 1 Rajpal Singh, who is informant of this case, P.W. 2 Virendra Kumar and P.W. 4 Krishna Pal Singh, who have not corroborated the prosecution version and have turned hostile. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 18.01.2016 having criminal history of 11 cases, which has been explained in para 28 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but conceded that during trial the witnesses P.W. 1, 2 and 4 have not supported the prosecution version and have turned hostile and applicant is languishing in jail since 18.01.2016.

¶9

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶10

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant, Sonu involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local and heavy sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 v.k.updh.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramnaresh Vs State of U.P.

Deendayal Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Smt Rubi Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.