Allowed

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023BAIL/29960/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant charged under the Arms Act. The Court found doubts regarding the recovery of arms from a property belonging to another person and noted the absence of independent witnesses. Criminal antecedents were not held as a standalone ground to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions including monthly reporting.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160734

¶2

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29960 of 2023 Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2023, under Sections 3/5/25 Arms Act, Police Station Pahasu, District Bulandshahr during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of a country made pistol, live cartridges and instruments for manufacturing of arms has been shown from a place which belongs to one Sonu Sardar. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraphs-16 and 17 of the affidavit and paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 30.04.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶9

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the alleged recovery was made from a place which belongs to another person. There is no independent witness to the recovery which creates a doubt on the prosecution story.

¶10

Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court,

¶11

if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶12

In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para- 30 has observed as under:

¶13

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶14

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶15

Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Sunil, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶17

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶18

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶20

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court; and,

¶21

(v) shall appear on 15th of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 9.8.2023/SKT/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Dharmendra Pramadik Vs State of U.P.

Amir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bajrang Singh Shekhawat Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.