Allowed

Sonveer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023BAIL/2587/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail appeal was decided allowing bail to the applicant, Sonveer, charged with murder under Section 302 IPC. The court emphasized the one-sided investigation, lack of forensic evidence, and the mandate of Article 21 regarding speedy trial and jail overcrowding.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and avoiding witness tampering, and a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within one y

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

¶1

Reserved on 22.02.2023

¶2

Delivered on 27.02.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2587 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sonveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sujan Singh,Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant and three named accused namely, Ravindra, Devendra and Amit Bansal and two unknown motorcycle borne accused that they have caused the offence of murder and criminal conspiracy. The applicant was not named in the first information report. It is alleged in the first information report that on 16.12.2021 the informant and his father, Prem Singh, were coming back to their house. The informant was on Tractor while his father was coming behind on foot. Suddenly, he heard the sound of firing behind and also screaming of his father. Looking back he found that two unknown accused on motorcycle have fired on his father at about 4.30 p.m. He ran towards his father and then both the assailants on motorcycle vanished. His father subsequently died in the hospital. His father was a witness in a case wherein firing was made on 08.12.2021 on Suresh, Amit and his father and Suresh and Amit had died. His father recovered after long treatment. In the aforesaid Case Crime no.36 of 2021, eight persons are in jail who are creating pressure through co-accused, Amit Bansal, for compromise. Co-accused, Ravindra and Devendra, are in Jail. All the aforesaid accused conspired to murder his father.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant is not eye an witness of the incident. His place of presence in the site plan prepared by the investigating officer has not been shown. At the time of the inquest the first information report was not registered. Inquest report was prepared on 20.45 hours on 16.12.2021 and post mortem was done at 2.00

¶9

p.m. on 17.12.2021. First information report was lodged on 23.43 hours on 16.12.2021. The applicant has been implicated in this case because his name was found in the list of visitors in the jail where the co-accused persons were lodged. It is alleged that he went to meet co-accused, Devendra Singh. He was also named by driver of co-accused, Devendra Singh. After about one month of the incident on 16.01.2022 two suspects were stopped by the police. Whose figure were matched with the pictures in the CCTV footage and the two persons, namely, Kirpal and Asgar Gani, accepted that it was their picture but the investigating officer did not implicated them. The police has shown planted recovery of the weapon alleged used in the crime from the house of the applicant and his confessional statement was also recorded. The applicant is well known to the family of the informant and why he was not implicated him earlier has not been explained. Co-accused, Devendra made calls to his wife and other family members including the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that had the applicant been involved in this case he would never called and met the co-accused, Devendra, in jail. No test identification parade was conducted. The applicant has no criminal history and except a case under the Arms Act, wherein he has been subsequently implicated, he has no criminal history. He has been implicated on the basis of suspicion.

¶10

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant in the form of mobile call details and recovery of weapon used in the alleged crime. He has pointed out that in the CD No.48 wherein the investigating officer has found that from the mobile number of the applicant 107 calls have been made from 03.08.2021 to 21.12.2021 on mobile no.574229731..

¶11

After hearing rival contentions, this court finds that the call details of the applicant on the mobile no.5742297310 are from 03.08.2021 to 11.12.2021 when the incident took place on 16.12.2021. There is no call made by the applicant to co-accused, Devendra on the mobile phone no. 5742297310. The owner of mobile phone no.5742297310 has not been identified by the investigating officer. This appears to be his first implication of the applicant. There is no FSL report of the arms allegedly recovered from the applicant.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant

¶13

2 of 4

¶14

being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the 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.

¶15

Let the applicant, Sonveer, involved in Case Crime No.502 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station Badalpur, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i)The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

3 of 4

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶23

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶25

Order Date :- 27.02.2023 SS

¶26

4 of 4

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonveer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonveer 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Kishan Vs State of U.P.

Utkarsh @ Sarthak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Alam Vs State of U.P.

Siddhu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others