Allowed

Sonu Yadav Alias Kalla Alias Suvendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023BAIL/9123/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 74 allowed a bail application in a murder trial under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC. The court granted release considering the entire prosecution witness list remains unexamined despite the applicant being in custody for over four years.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9123 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Alias Kalla Alias Suvendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mithilesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant 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 S.T. No. 197 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 524 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station- Shikohabad, District- Firozabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and four others and according to the FIR, applicant and coaccused Mahipal committed the murder of the brother of the informant by causing fire-arm injury to him along with their three other associates.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and applicant neither participated in the crime nor he ever caused any fire-arm injury to the deceased. He further submitted that admittedly informant is not a eyewitness and he himself stated this fact in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and although, he did

¶9

not disclose the name of any eye-witness in the FIR but in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he stated that Mohit and Ajay were the eye-witnesses and this fact itself shows that only due to enmity applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter and both Mohit and Ajay are the planted eye-witnesses.

¶10

He further submitted that there is specific allegation in the statements of alleged eye-witnesses Mohit and Ajay that applicant and Mahipal caused fire-arm injury to the deceased due to which deceased died but co-accused Mahipal has been released on bail by this Court and bail order of the co-accused Mahipal has been annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit and co-accused Mahipal was also having criminal history to his credit and case of applicant is at par with him.

¶11

He further submitted that although, applicant is having criminal history of one case of Section 302 IPC and on the basis of that case he was also made accused under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act but in both the cases he has been released on bail and criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 9 of the affidavit. He further submitted that applicant, in the present matter applicantis in jail since 14.7.2018 i.e. for last about more than four and half years and till date no prosecution witness could be examined, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and

¶13

submitted that applicant along with co-accused Mahipal committed murder of the brother of the informant and Mohit and Ajay were the eye-witnesses and they also stated against the applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the informant further submitted that applicant is also having criminal history of one case of 302 IPC and after release on bail in that case, he committed murder of the brother of the informant therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that co-accused Mahipal has been released on bail and he was also having criminal history of five cases and applicant is in jail, in the present matter, since July, 2018 i.e. for last about more than four and half years and till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.

¶15

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

¶16

Although, there is allegation against the applicant that he along with co-accused Mahipal committed the murder of the brother of the informant by causing fire-arm injury to him and as per eye-witnesses Mohit and Ajay, applicant and Mahipal opened fire upon the deceased but it appears that names of the both alleged eye-witnesses were not disclosed in the FIR and first time their names were disclosed by the informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he himself stated that he is not eye-witness and they witnessed the present incident.

¶17

Further, from the perusal of the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses Mohit and Ajay, it appears that

¶18

applicant and co-accused Mahipal opened fire and coaccused Mahipal has been released on bail by this Court. Although, applicant is having criminal history of two cases in which one case is of Section 302 IPC but criminal history of the applicant has been explained in affidavit and further, applicant is in jail, in the present matter, since July, 2018 i.e. for last about more than four and half years and till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.

¶19

Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Let the applicant- Sonu Yadav Alias Kalla Alias Suvendra 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the

¶26

prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶27

Order Date :- 20.4.2023

¶28

KK Patel

¶29

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

Sonu Yadav Alias Kalla Alias Suvendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Yadav Alias Kalla Alias Suvendra 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