Allowed

Ramu Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2023BAIL/6308/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application in a murder trial, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad considered the applicant's plea of false implication, delayed FIR, and lack of eyewitness. Weighing the complicity of accused and severity of punishment, the court was of the view that a case for bail was made out.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to standard conditions regarding tampering and appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6308 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ramu Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Man Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0295 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Chunar, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the son of the informant had left his house in the evening of 9.10.2022 alongwith Suraj and Harinath and they are stated to have met with an accident near village Barewan, and as such, entered into a brawl with the applicant and other co-accused person, whereby the said Suraj and Harinath are stated to have fled from the place of occurrence and the applicant and four other named accused persons are stated to have assaulted the deceased thereby causing his death. The fact of the dead body of his son being lying on the road came to the knowledge of the informant on 10.10.2022 at about 7.00 am. As such, the FIR was lodged by him at 2.20 pm.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR itself is delayed and particularly to the factum of knowledge of the informant about the dead body, the FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay. Learned counsel has next stated that there is no eye-witness to the incident and the applicant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel has also submitted that two persons namely, Suraj and Harinath, are said to have been travelling alongwith the deceased person, have been examined by the investigating officer on 28.11.2022 respectively. It is further stated that even the witness Harinath has been examined in jail. It is next stated that the deceased and the said witnesses used to consume drugs,

¶10

as such, the witnesses Harinath is in jail. This is a blind murder and the said delay speaks to it. The FIR does not indicate about the source of information received by the informant about the incident. It is also stated that the delay in examining the eyewitness is fatal to the prosecution and falsifies its story.

¶11

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 10.10.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the fact that the statements of the witnesses has been taken after a delay of more than one month and that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

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 allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Ramu Sonkar 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.2.2023 Shalini

¶25

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

Ramu Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Sonkar 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

Vijay Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Annu Widow Vs State of U.P.

Prabal Agnihotri Vs State of U.P.

Udal Bind @ Rudal Bind @ Vikas Bind Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sovendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others