Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45029 of 2022

Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.134 of 2022 at Police Station-Sonauli, DistrictMaharajganj under Section 8/21/23 NDPS Act. The applicant is in jail since 30.08.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Maharajganj on 18.10.2019.

¶7

The following arguments made by Shri Anup Kumar Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Markandey Singh, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: (1). Recovered items were planted on the applicant to implicate him in this case to burnish the credentials of the police authorities.

¶8

(2). There is no independent witness to the recovery. (3). Recovered items cannot be connected with the offence.

¶9

(4). Explaining the criminal history of the applicant it is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said cases. The applicant belongs to poor economic strata of the society and is convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

¶10

(5). The applicant and his family reside in districtMaharajganj and the livelihood of the applicant is also in the same district. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶11

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sonu Kumar 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 below. The

¶13

following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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.

¶17

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the State/prosecution may move an application for cancellation of bail application.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.1.2023 Ashish Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar 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

Rameshwar Dharikar Vs State of U.P.

Meena Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh Singh @ Rahul Singh Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.