Allowed

Sonu Bhartiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023BAIL/8905/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for an accused in an attempt to murder case where only confessional statement exists. Court noted no eyewitness identification, no CCTV disclosure, no physical evidence, and accused has no prior record. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount satisfying the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8905 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Bhartiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 548 of 2022, under Sections 392, 304, 34 IPC, Police Station- Naini, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person under Sections 392, 308 IPC and according to the FIR, niece of the informant while travelling in a tempo somebody after snatching her ear-rings threw her from the tempo and incident was recorded in a CCTV.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and although, it is alleged in the FIR that incident was recorded in a CCTV but when the CCTV footage was checked by the police then although, name of the auto-driver could be disclosed but identity of the person, who was sitting along with the victim, could not be disclosed. He further submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 308 IPC but after the death of the victim case was converted under Section 304 IPC and before the death of

¶9

the victim, her statement could not be recorded either under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

He further submitted that in the entire investigation no evidence could be collected by the IO against the applicant and applicant was arrested in the present matter on the basis of information furnished by the police informer and thereafter, it is alleged that he confessed his guilt. He further submitted that no recovery could be made from the possession of the applicant and he is not having any criminal history. He further submitted that during investigation statements of number of alleged eyewitnesses were recorded and they although, stated that some scuffling was going-on on the back seat but none of them disclosed the named of the applicant.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA although, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that identity of the applicant could not be disclosed from the alleged CCTV footage and further, none of the eye-witnesses disclosed his name and the complicity of the applicant was revealed on the basis of information furnished by the police informer and except the confessional statement of the applicant, there is no evidence on record against him.

¶12

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

¶13

However, it is a case in which a young girl lost her life during snatching of her ear-rings but it appears that there is no admissible evidence against the applicant, who was made accused in the present matter, during investigation and only evidence against the applicant appears to his

¶14

confessional statement and no recovery could be made from the possession of the applicant. Further, even in the CCTV footage identity of the applicant could not be disclosed and none of the eye-witnesses could disclose his identity and he is not having any criminal history, therefore, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Sonu Bhartiya 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 / KK Patel

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Bhartiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Bhartiya 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

Abhishek Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shaleem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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