Allowed

Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023BAIL/59295/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Hon'ble Court allowed the release of the applicant Sonu Yadav on bail in a dacoity case. The Court noted the general nature of allegations, lack of recovery, and minor injuries involved. The applicant was ordered to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties on conditions to appear, not tamper with evidence, and avoid criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59295 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Deepak Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Singh,Km Astha

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 546 of 2022, under Sections 395, 397, 354 kha IPC and Section 3(1)(W), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya during pendency of the trial.

¶8

According to the prosecution case, FIR of the present case was lodged against seven named and one unnamed person with the allegation that they entered in the house of informant and committed Dacoity and in the incident five persons sustained injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant has been implicated in the present matter only due to the reason that he is close friend of co-accused Dharmendra and admittedly there was a dispute is pending between informant and co-accused Dharmendra and this fact itself mentioned by the informant in the FIR. He further submitted that there is allegation that some jewellery and Rs. 1,40,000/- was looted by the applicant and others but from the perusal of the FIR it appears that very casually such type of serious allegation has been made against all the accused persons. He further submits that FIR of the present case was although lodged under Section 308 IPC also but subsequently as injuries of the injured were found simple in nature, therefore, no charge-sheet was filed under Section 308 IPC. He further submitted that indisputably all the injured sustained minor

¶10

injuries and on the basis of general allegation applicant along with seven others has been roped in the present matter.

¶11

He further submits that applicant is although having criminal history of four other cases but out of four cases two cases were of Section 25 Arms Act and one case of the provisions of SC/ST Act and another case relates to the violation of Covid-19 pandemic guidelines. He further submits that applicant is in jail since 23.09.2022.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicant and six other named accused persons that they entered in the house of informant and committed Dacoity and also committed loot of Rs. 1,40,000/and some ornaments but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that story with regard to Dacoity appears to be quite general in nature and no recovery of any looted item was made either from the possession of applicant or any other co-accused persons.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant also could not dispute that some some dispute is pending between informant and accused Dharmendra.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

From the perusal of record, it appears that in the FIR there is allegation against the applicant that he along with six others named persons and along with unknown persons committed Dacoity in the house of informant and looted some ornaments and Rs. 1,40,000/- but during the course of investigation, no looted item could be recovered and in the FIR it is mentioned that some dispute since the year 2020 is pending between informant and co-accused Dharmendra and further, it appears that on the basis of general allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter and in the statement of injured and other witnesses no specific allegation has been made against any of the accused. Further, although in the incident it is alleged that five persons sustained injuries but injuries sustained to them appears to be simple in nature and no charge-sheet was submitted under Section 308 IPC.

¶16

Although, applicant is having criminal history of four other cases but his criminal history has been explained in para 28 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and paragraph no. 9 to the supplementary affidavit and applicant in the present matter is in jail since 23.09.2022. Therefore, from the

¶17

discussion made above in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

In the light of discussions made above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant - Sonu Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 AK Pandey

¶25

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

Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Sujeet Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Soni Vs State of U.P.

Fatehyab Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer Vs Union Of India

Gaurav Alias Gaura Vs State of U.P.