Allowed

Pawan Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2023BAIL/42956/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail application was heard by a single judge. The applicant, accused of assault, argued he was falsely implicated with no specific role in causing injuries. The court, noting the lack of specific charges, no criminal history, and no reasonable risk of witness tampering, allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Releasing the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties and conditions of appearing in court and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:218046

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42956 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pawan Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atif Ahmad,Shashi Bhushan Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shashank Shekhar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 246 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj,, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per allegations in the FIR, five persons including applicant are alleged to have assaulted the informant. As per medical report the informant sustained six injuries. All the injuries, except injury no.6, are simple in nature. The injury no. 6 was referred for x-ray examination. As per supplementary medical report, the said injury is a fracture on left side of parietal bone. It is contended that the author of the said injury is not known. Even in the statement of the injured/informant the applicant has not been nominated as principal offender, who caused the said injury. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 22.09.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to all the accused. Even the injured/informant in

¶11

his statement has not nominated the applicant as the principal offender, who caused the injury. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let applicant, Pawan Sonkar , involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Prajapati

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Sonkar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Aasit Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Gulshan Patel Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.