Mahesh Kumar Soni @ Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29891

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3438 of 2023

Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Soni @ Mahesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidvit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Tarabganj, District- Gonda, during trial.

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the coaccused Sri Ram was enlarged on bail vide order dated 4.4.2024 passed in Criminal misc. Bail Application No.11198 of 2023.

¶10

While arguing the present bail application, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was named as an accused on the basis of suspicion. Subsequently, on the basis of statement of one of the witnesses, namely, Bechu Lal, the applicant and the other co-accused, who is enlarged on bail, were implicated with the offence in question. He argued that during trial, the said witness has specifically stated in his crossexamination that he did not know the applicant nor could he recognise him. The single statement was made in respect of coaccused and that was the foundation , based upon which the coaccused was enlarged on bail vide order dated 4.4.2024. He thus, argued that the applicant should also be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned AGA opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant by arguing that case of the applicant is different from the coaccused. He further argued that applicant was specifically named in the F.I.R. and the recovery of adhar card, pan card, driving license of the victim were also recovered from the applicant and thus, the case of the applicant is different from the co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant, in rejoinder, argued that

¶13

the recovery memo, based upon which, the recovery was shown against the applicant is not in the presence of the independent witness and it is evident from the recovery memo which has been filed as CA-2 to the counter affidavit.

¶14

Considering the submissions made at the bar, the applicant was made an accused based upon apprehension, he was dealing with the offence based upon statement of one of the witness Bechu Lal, who has not supported that prosecution story in the cross examination, coupled with the said fact, the recovery allegedly shown from the evidence is not in the presence of the independent witness and further the applicant is in custody since 2.5.2022 and has no criminal history, the applicant is enlarged on bail.

¶15

Thus the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Mahesh Kumar Soni @ Mahesh Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahesh Kumar Soni @ Mahesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Soni @ Mahesh Kumar 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

Similar cases

Vaishnavi Jaiswal vs Vineet Jaiswal

Suraj Bali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Soni Dixit @ Soni Mishra vs Ankit Mishra

Ram Sumer @ Sumer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Hanuman Prasad Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Junaid Ahmad Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Secrt. Lko.