Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/1636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application regarding charges of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC and intimidation under Section 506 IPC, the High Court allowed the bail application, citing lack of clear evidence of abetment and the applicant's long custody without criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in FIR No. 94/2022, police station Amethi, on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, subject to standard conditions.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45235

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1636 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Anu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arti Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Ms. Arti Shukla, learned counsel for the informant has sent an illness slip, however learned counsel for the applicant opposed the said illness slip, by arguing that the applicant is in custody since long and in any case, the informant has no right to be heard while deciding the bail application on its merits.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid opposition, the bail application is being heard on merits after hearing learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶9

In terms of the F.I.R., the allegations were levelled through an application under SEction 156(3) Cr.P.C.that the applicant used to misbehave with the sister of the informant and had also threatened her. Subsequently, the sister of the informant was immolated by the applicant. With the said allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 302 and 306 I.P.C.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the deceased died after fifteen days of the alleged incident. After investigation, the applicant has been charged for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and chargesheet has not been filed under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶11

From perusal of the material on record, it transpired that the sister of the informant died on account of being set on fire as there is no allegation of offence under Section 302 I.P.C., the

¶12

applicant has been linked with the offence in question and is being tried for the offence of abetment under Section 306 I.P.C. The documents on record do not demonstrate abetment at the instance of the applicant as defined under Section 107 I.P.C.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are treated to be gospel truth, the allegations under Section 306 I.P.C are not made out as there is no case of abetment as defined under Section 107 I.P.C. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another Vs. Inspector of Police : 2022 SCC Online SC 1387. The applicant who is in custody since 3.5.2023 having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

Considering the entire material available on record and the law as has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another(supra), prima facie there is no material to suggest the allegations of abetment against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence of abetment defined under Section 107 I.P.C. coupled with the fact that the applicant is in jail since 3.5.2023 and the having no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant Sunil Kumar be released

¶18

on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.94 of 2022, under Sections 306, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Amethi, District Amethi on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.7.2024

¶23

Shukla

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Radheshyam @ Kariya Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jitendra Yadav @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Niranjan @ Niranjan Thakur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others