Allowed

Tushar Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2024/6799/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application for an accused charged with murder. The court observed that prosecution witnesses linking the applicant to the offense failed to support their statements and noted his history of minor offences as grounds for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail, executing a personal bond and two sureties of equivalent amount, subject to conditions of attendance, non-committal of similar offences, and non-interference with witnesses

Tushar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57773

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6799 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Tushar Sonkar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Suwan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Counter and Rejoinder Affidavit filed in court 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.165 of 2023 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Qaiserbagh, District Lucknow.

¶9

The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the son of the informant aged about 22 years had gone to pre-wedding ceremony of the sister of his friend on 10.12.2023 and on 11.12.2023, an information was received that he died on account of the accident. Subsequently, from the body, the firearm injury mark was seen, as such, FIR was lodged alleging that someone had killed the son of the informant with the use of firearm, however, no one was named in the FIR. Subsequently, in the statement of the two witnesses who had stated that he had seen the applicant running along with the firearm, as such, the applicant was linked with the offence in question.

¶10

The counsel for the applicant argues that subsequently the said two witnesses, based upon whose statements, the applicant was linked with the offence in question, have not supported the prosecution and other witnesses have not deposed against the applicant.

¶11

Considering the fact that two witnesses based upon whose statements, the applicant was linked with the offence in question have not supported their own statements during the trial coupled with the fact that the applicant has the criminal history of minor offences, the applicant who is in custody since 13.12.2023 is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Tushar Sonkar be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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 :- 23.8.2024 VNP/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tushar Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Sana Ullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Chotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ritesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rafiullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Riyajul Hasan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.