Sarthak Singh Vs State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10524

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1266 of 2024

Applicant :- Sarthak Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Singh,Vivek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.289 of 2023, under Section 279, 304, 201, 34 IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar Extension, District Lucknow.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that on 21.11.2023, the informant had taken her son around 9 years to Jaineshwar Mishra Park and outside on the road when he was standing, a vehicle which was being driven rashly and negligently by an unknown person hit the son as a result whereof he died. Subsequently, on the basis of a confessional statement, the applicant was linked with the offence in question. In terms of the confessional statement, which is on record as Annexure - 5, it was allegedly confessed that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed. It also records that the applicant had confessed that he does not have a driving license and also that the father of the applicant tried to somehow take steps for concealing the vehicle in question.

¶9

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had learner's license, which has been placed on record as Annexure - 2 to state that the confessional statement was recorded under duress. It is also argued that the co-accused who was sitting beside the applicant, who was allegedly driving the vehicle, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 11.01.2024, which is on record as Annexure - 10. While passing the said order, the Court had noticed the contention and prima-facie , found that the provisions of Section 304A IPC would be attracted and not under Section 304 IPC. Considering the said fact coupled with the fact that the applicant therein had no criminal history, he was enlarged on bail.

¶10

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶11

6. In the present case, the difference is that the applicant was allegedly driving the vehicle at an excessive speed on a public road. Prima-facie, on the basis of the allegation, in the present case also, Section 304A IPC would be attracted. As such, considering the said fact coupled with the fact that the applicant has learner's license and he is a young boy aged about 19 years and has no criminal antecedent, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶12

7. Let the applicant Sarthak Singh be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 5.2.2024 nishant

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarthak Singh v. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarthak Singh v. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baba @ Jagmohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Suraj Pratap Rai Alias Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Guddu @ Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Jabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bramha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sewak Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others