Court granted bail to Sonu @ Sameer in a murder case under sections 302 and 363 IPC. The applicant was not named in the FIR, and witnesses examined at trial did not implicate him, distinguishing his case from the co-accused.
Release on personal bond and two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court with specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20948 of 2022
Applicant :- Sonu @ Sameer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar,Barkha Chaudhary,Desh Ratan Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Sonu @ Sameer, who is involved in Case Crime No. 367 of 2020, under Sections 302, 363, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per the prosecution case in brief, informant-Nafisa who is mother of the deceased Arman Saifi, aged about 14 years, lodged an F.I.R. on 25.07.2020 against Sharukh Alvi alleging inter-alia that on 21.07.2020 at about 08:00 A.M., her son Arman Safi had gone from the house and came back at 11:30 A.M. and told that he had gone to Gagol with Sharukh Alvi who carried him to the farm house of his friend and had also given a card reader to him. On 23.07.2020 at 11:00 A.M., he told his sisters Fiza and Riya that he was going to take chip with Sharukh Alvi and will return within half an hour but did not return till 07:00 P.M. Hectic search was made to trace him but all in vain. During investigation, name of Sonu alias Sameer also came into light in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant in which she, reiterating the contents of F.I.R., further stated inter-alia that she had been in relationship with her lover Naushad in Madhya Pradesh for the last three years but Sonu @ Sameer s/o Naushad threatened her that you leave his father otherwise you will face the dire consequences. On 21.07.2020 and 23.07.2020, she had also seen Sonu @ Sameer roaming around her house, therefore, she suspects
that Sonu may also be involved in the case. Thereafter as per prosecution case, on 26.07.2020 at 08:30 A.M., police apprehended Sharukh Alvi and Sonu @ Sameer and on their pointing out, dead body of the deceased was recovered. A country made pistol (tamancha) of 315 bore was also recovered from the possession of Sharukh Alvi and a knife without bloodstained was recovered at the pointing out of Sonu @ Sameer.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Complicity of the applicant came into light in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant-Nafisa on the basis of suspicion because she was having illicit relation with his father. Referring the medical examination report of Sonu, it is submitted that applicant was medically examined on 26.07.2020 at 02:10 p.m. in which red contusion containing 28cm x 12cm was found over his both buttocks which indicates that after his arrest, he was beaten by the police. It is pointed out that duration of the injuries of the applicant was not fresh but was found within one day which corroborates with the stand of the applicant that false recovery has been shown by the police on 26.07.2020 whereas correct fact is that the applicant was arrested from his house on 25.07.2020. It is also pointed out that the news about arrest of the applicant was published in 'Dainik Jagran' newspaper dated 26.07.2020, which indicates that the arrest of the applicant was made on 25.07.2020 but it was wrongly shown by the police on 26.07.2020. On the strength of above facts, it is argued that prosecution has built up his case on the basis of alleged confessional statement dated 26.07.2020 of the applicant, whereas injuries found on the body of the applicant Sonu indicate that the said confessional statement was obtained under duress. Referring the inquest report, it is pointed out that at all the places where dated 25.07.2020 were mentioned has been changed as 26.07.2020 by overwriting and interpolation which also indicates that the entire paper was prepared on 25.07.2020 but later on when the police shown a false recovery from the possession of the applicant on 26.07.2020
then by interpolation, dates have been changed in other documents. Lastly it is submitted that before the trial court, informant as well as both the sisters of the deceased have been examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 but they did not name the applicant. Referring the examination-in-chief of PW-1, it is pointed out that informant has clearly stated that present applicant Sonu has no concern in this case. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 14.08.2021.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the applicant is not named in F.I.R. During investigation name of the applicant- Sonu alias Sameer came into light in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant but when informant as well as both the sisters of the deceased who are the witnesses of the fact have been examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 before the trial Court, they did not name the applicant, therefore, case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Sharukh Alvi and the applicant has made out a prima-facie case for bail.
Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .
Let the applicant- Sonu @ Sameer , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 27.4.2023 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an applicant not named in the FIR but implicated in investigation based on suspicion and inconsistent police reports?
Whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail given the distinction between his role and that of the co-accused?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sonu @ Sameer
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
