Allowed

Sonu Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2023BAIL/5607/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge granted bail to an accused charged under Section 304 I.P.C., holding the case arose from sudden provocation and prosecution witnesses were hostile. Bail allowed on personal bond and two heavy sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specified conditions.

What the court decided

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5607 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Tripathi,Girish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.188 of 2020, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Saiyan, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant and deceased person had entered into an altercation on 29.10.2020. The applicant is stated to have thrown a danda at the deceased person thereby causing injuries to his head.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was instituted the same night at 11:48 PM. Learned counsel has further stated that during trial, three witnesses of fact, namely, PW-1 the informant and PW-2 and PW3 the eye-witnesses, have completely resiled from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. Another witness PW-4 has also been examined and has not supported the prosecution story although he has not annexed the said statement to the bail application. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.10.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased is the father of the

¶11

applicant and it is true that the case is of sudden provocation, but he has committed the gruesome offence of injuring his father later on succumbed to the said injuries sustained.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the case is of sudden provocation and the witnesses have turned hostile, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Sonu Kumar involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

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

¶15

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

(v) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

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

Sonu Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sonu 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

Surendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Kanchan Devi Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Vs State of U.P.

Ashish @ Rinkal Vs State of U.P.