Allowed

Ashish Soni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2023BAIL/56925/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, Applicant Ashish Soni sought release in a murder case involving recovery of firearms and gold based on an eyewitness statement. The Court examined arguments regarding the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions and recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act before granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56925 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Soni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Kesari,Gaurang Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2022, under Sections 392, 302, 201, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Ait, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the deceased was the manager of the informant and is stated to have left Delhi to Gwalior via Orai and have stayed at the house of Ashish Soni at Orai. After leaving his house, his whereabouts could not be ascertained, as such, a missing report was filed by the informant and later on, unknown dead body was recovered from a well within the precincts of police station Ait, district Jalaun, whereby the FIR was lodged against unknown persons.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case out of vengeance, with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has further stated that applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The only evidence against the applicant is the recovery memo, as on the information of a squealer, the applicant was interrogated and on his pointing out, the licensed revolver and a golden ornaments weighing 912 grams were recovered in addition to cash Rs. 50,000/- on 23.7.2022. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is a goldsmith and is engaged in the said business and it is natural to have the ornaments with him. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has a valid license of the said revolver. He has claimed the said ornaments and material

¶10

recovered. Learned counsel has next stated that at the time of lodging the FIR and till the recovery, no list of ornaments looted has been given by the informant. There is no evidence against the applicant except his confession before the police and the extrajudicial confession before the three persons namely, Neeraj Soni, Sanjay Soni and Amit Kumar Soni. Learned counsel has next stated that the said extra-judicial confession is not admissible in light of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the said persons are not having any clout in the locality or before any administrative authorities. They themselves are goldsmiths.

¶11

Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh alias Chandra vs. State of Karnataka, AIROnline 2022 SC 595, whereby it is categorically stated that the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a mere formality and the statement made thereupon to the police personnel, is not admissible against him.

¶12

It is further stated that no identification of the ornaments recovered at the pointing out of the applicant is done as per the Indian Evidence Act. The informant is stated to have identified them in the custody of the police, which is not admissible. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant has been made an accused solely on the basis of apprehension that the deceased has stayed during the night at his house, but he had already left his house and the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶13

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 23.7.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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

¶16

allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Ashish Soni 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

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 on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 14.3.2023 Shalini

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Soni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Soni 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhottan Tiwari Urf Muratdhwaj Vs State of U.P.

Yatendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt Muliya Vs State of U.P.

Ajai Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.