Allowed

Sunny v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024/452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal appeal under sections 147, 302, 201, 34 IPC. Relying on the principle of parity with two co-accused already released, the order allowed the application on the furnishing of a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Sunny Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29629

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 452 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sunny Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Shukla,Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime/FIR No.540 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. Police Station- Phoolbehad, DistrictKheri, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and in jail since 01.11.2023. He further submitted that co-accused, namely, Anoop Rajbhar and Sheru Kumar @ Arun Kumar Rajbhar have already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 21.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.342 of 2024. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

During course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant placed before this Court a photocopy of bail order of coaccused, namely, Anoop Rajbhar and Sheru Kumar @ Arun Kumar Rajbhar is taken on record.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but has fairly conceded that similarly situated coaccusedAnoop Rajbhar and Sheru Kumar @ Arun Kumar Rajbhar have already been granted bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as order of co-accused, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sunny, who is involved in aforementioned

¶13

case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

(ii) 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

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.4.2024 V. Sinha

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunny v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faiz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Shyama Singh Vs Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Lakhimpur Kheri

Smt. Madhavi Mishra Vs Shrinath Verma Presently posted as Secretary Uttar Pradesh Sehkari Sansthagat Seva Mandal and Anr.

Prashant Kumar Gupta Alias Prashant Lohiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Sunny vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abdul Rauf @ Sallu vs Arun Mauli Chief Development Officer, Gonda