Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2023BAIL/46217/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case. The court held that since the applicant was not named in the FIR and the only evidence against him was an extrajudicial confession assigning the main role to a co-accused already granted bail, a prima facie case was made out.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under specific conditions including attending trial, no inducement, avoidance of criminal activity, and verification of sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46217 of 2022 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Sen,Raj Kumar Sharma

¶3

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶5

The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 134 of 2022, under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police StationShimbhawali, District-Hapur, during the pendency of trial.

¶6

As per the prosecution case in brief, informant Annu Sharma, brother-in-law of the deceased lodged an FIR on 10.04.2022 against unknown persons for the offence under Section 302 IPC regarding murder of his brother-in-law namely Babu Ram Sharma.

¶7

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR of this case was lodged against unknown persons. The complicity of the present applicant along with co-accused Anuj Kumar, Vishal and Pradeep Fauji came into light on 21.04.2022 on the basis of extra judicial confession of Anuj made before Sukhveer Singh. The applicant is brother-in-law of grand-son of Sukhveer Singh. Much emphasis has been given by contending that except the above mentioned extra judicial confession, there is no corroborative material on record against the applicant. It is also argued that co-accused Vishal has been granted bail by the court below whereas Anuj Kumar and Pradeep Fauji have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.01.2023 and 21.03.2023 in Criminal

¶8

Misc. Bail Application Nos. 29627 of 2022 and 46603 of 2022 respectively. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is languishing in jail since 21.04.2022.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. He further submits that the role of shooting the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Pradeep Fauji.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that applicant is not named in the FIR. There is no direct evidence against the present applicant except the extra judicial confession, as noted above and in the said extra judicial confession, main role of shooting has been assigned to co-accused Pradeep Fauji who has been granted bail, therefore, applicant has made out prima-facie case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant- Sandeep 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not

¶16

involve in any criminal activity.

¶17

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.3.2023

¶20

Saurabh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar 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

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Jiyaul Vs State of U.P.

Amit @ Mitthu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivam Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others