Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023BAIL/51713/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application by Sanjay Kumar Sharma, falsely implicated in a culpable homicide case. Citing that similarly placed co-accused were already granted bail, the court allowed bail on personal and surety conditions without deciding the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions preventing tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51713 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the name of the applicant in memo of bail application.

¶6

The computer Centre, High Court, Allahabad, is directed to correct the particulars of the bail application.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 228 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Bansdih, District Ballia, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶9

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the FIR is based on false and fabricated facts. He further submits that the allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant are that they have caused culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is a case of road rage. Number of persons have beaten the deceased on aforesaid account. The deceased suffered three injuries in the nature of one contusion and two lacerated wounds on head, which proved fatal for his life. It is not clear who has caused the fatal injury out of 19 persons implicated in the first information report. In the CCTV footage the applicant was not standing there and nothing in his hand, hence the story of the prosecution is baseless and false. The applicant was not present at that time when the incident was occurred and prosecution has falsely implicated the applicant without any reasonable ground. It is next submitted that co-accused persons namely Manish Sharma and Jitendra Sharma have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 45724 of 2022 and 43302 of 2022, copy of which have already been filed today, which is taken on record. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.07.2022 having no

¶10

criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. However, it is not disputed the fact that the similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail by this Court.

¶12

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A. G. A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶13

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Sanjay Kumar Sharma Urf Kallu in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 v.k.updh.

¶21

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

Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Kallu 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

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Shankar @ Ravi Shankar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Aashu @ Satyapal Vs State of U.P.