Sudhakar Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59094 of 2022

Applicant :- Sudhakar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Pankaj Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Sudhaka r, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2022, under Section 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Dhanari, District- Sambhal, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The accused/ applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Neither applicant is named in the F.I.R. nor any motive has been shown. The police, at the behest of named accused persons have implicated the applicant for extraneous consideration as a scapegoat. The name of the applicant has been surfaced during investigation, however, nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. The alleged recovery is false and planted as no forensic report has been produced to substantiate the prosecution version. There is no eyewitness of the alleged incident. Co-accused Yash Kumar has been granted bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 30.08.2022. Therefore, the accused/ applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Lastly, it has been submitted that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 04.08.2022, he has no previous criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and they shall also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that as per the CDR of the mobile number of the accused-applicant, at the time of the incident his location was found to be at the place of the occurrence. There is extra judicial confessional of the accused given before Pappu and Surya Prakash Singh wherein he has admitted that he has killed the deceased. In the confessional statement of the accused Yash, he has stated that there was some dispute with the deceased, he had given a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as an advance to the present accused to kill the deceased. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is axphyxia due to anti mortem strangulation, moreover, the Gamachha used in the commission of crime has also been recovered from the possession of the accused. There is last seen evidence, recovery, extra-judicial confession and motive against the applicant, thus, all the ingredients necessary for conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. based on circumstantial evidence has been established. The role of the accused is totally different and distinguishable from the coaccused Yash Kumar who has been granted bail by Court below. Therefore, the accused/ applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail in any manner.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that though the applicant is not named accused, however, as per the CDR, his location was found to be at the place of occurrence at the time of incident, the weapon i.e. Gamachha used in the crime has also been recovered from his possession and there are several witnesses of last seen who have seen the applicant and the deceased together just before the incident.

¶11

Thus, having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, nature and manner of commission of offence and evidence regarding the complicity of applicant, no case for bail, at this stage, is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶13

Order Date :- 13.3.2023 S.Verma

¶14

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

Sudhakar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalbrat Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Prakash Sahni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Vs State of U.P

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others