Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023BAIL/6970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in an assault case involving IPC Sections 323, 308, and 504. Considering the vague role assigned and the high court order granting bail to co-accused, the Court held that criminal antecedents alone do not preclude bail absent exceptional circumstances. The applicant was released on a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to five conditions including monthly appearance at the police station.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160779

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6970 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Chauhan,Rajesh Kumar Bind,Sandeep Kumar Agrahari,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2015, under Sections 323, 308, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, four accused persons including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted the father of the informant by lathi, danda and farsa. As per the injury report, the injured has received injury on his head. As per the report of the radiologist annexed at Page 29 of the paper book, no bony abnormality was seen. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the head injury. It is next contended that co-accused Iliyas and Sonu, having identical role, have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 27681 of 2015, Iliyas v. State of U.P., and 29420 of 2015, Sonu v. State of U.P., vide orders dated 05.08.2015 and 09.09.2015 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 31.12.2022 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶10

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima

¶11

facie opinion that general and vague role has been assigned to the applicant and the applicant has not been nominated as principal offender who caused the head injury to the injured.

¶12

Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶13

In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para- 30 has observed as under:

¶14

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶15

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶16

Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost seven months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant- Sonu, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶18

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶19

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court; and,

¶22

(v) shall appear on 15th of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶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

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 SKT/-

¶25

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

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Munabbar Vs State of U.P.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Shakeel @ Hafiz Gatua Vs State of U.P.

Gausulbara Vs State of U.P.

Chotey Khan Vs State of U.P.