Allowed

Sanjay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024/6507/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant Sanjay, accused under Sections 304, 323, 325, and 504 IPC, relying on parity grounds as his co-accused parents were previously released, despite opposing counsel's objections.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52675

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6507 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Dwivedi,Uday Pratap Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 26.10.2023 in FIR/Case Crime No. 274 of 2023, under Sections 304, 323, 325, 504 IPC , Police StationAsoha, District- Unnao.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story, so narrated in the First Information Report. Attention has been drawn towards impugned F.I.R. which is delayed by 7 days and no explanation of delay of lodging the FIR has been given. In the FIR, the specific allegations have been levelled against all the three accused persons including the present applicant. The present applicant is son of co-accused- Shyam Lal (father-in-law of the deceased) and Shyama Devi @ Saraswati (mother-in-law of the deceased). As per the prosecution story, all the three accused persons have started beating the sister (since deceased) of the complainant/informant on trivial issues. All the accused persons were allegedly possessed with cane and stick. As per the statement of the eye witness, all the three accused persons were beating the victim (since deceased) and on account of such assault, the victim

¶12

sustained serious injuries, as a result of which, she succumbed to such injuries after nine days while taking treatment. He further submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall participate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Shyama Devi @ Saraswati (mother of the applicant) and Shyam Lal (father of the applicant) having similar role to that of present applicant, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.05.2024 and 04.07.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 762 of 2024 and 5149 of 2024 respectively, therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶14

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case since there is eye witness account suggesting that the present applicant is equally responsible with other coaccused persons in committing offence, therefore, his bail application may be rejected, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R., other material available on record, the fact that though as per the eye witness account equal role has been attributed to the present applicant as has been attributed to all the accused persons, considering the fact that the coaccused, namely, Shyama Devi @ Saraswati and Shyam Lal, having similar role to that of present applicant, have been granted bail by this Court; the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the undertaking that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let applicant- Sanjay, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶19

(ii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶23

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Preeti.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uday Pratap and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj and Ors.

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Inspector (Retired) Anjani Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home (Police Services) U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Jitendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Social Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Bebi Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Anr.

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