Allowed

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024/7188/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant accused in a grievous hurt case under Section 307 IPC. The court considered the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, the delay in examining the main witness, and followed high court to grant bail despite the heinous nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59791

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7188 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,Aakash Srivastava,Roshan Babu Gupta,Vaibhav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Sahu

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 09.01.2021 at about 6:00 pm, the brother of informant was going to look after his wheat crop and when he reached in front of patched roof of the accused/applicant where the accused persons were present and after seeing the brother of the informant at the instigation of other accused persons, allegedly the applicant fired upon the brother of the applicant which inflicted on the left side of the chest. The brother of the informant (injured) was admitted in the Kanpur hospital on 10.01.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injured Sant Ram is a hardened criminal; he is wanted in several cases of registered at District Kannauj and in those cases he is absconding. He further submits that statements of PW-1 and PW-2 have been recorded, however, they are not the witnesses of the incident. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2021 without having any criminal antecedents.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that complicity of the applicant is evident from the statement of the injured which is corroborated by the injury report. The offence is heinous and the injury is also grievous. The injured could

¶10

have died from the said fire arm injury.

¶11

Perused the record.

¶12

Perusal of the status report of the trial court shows that PW-1 and PW-2 who are the police personnel have been examined and injured Sant Ram and Shiv Kumar have been summoned.

¶13

Perusal of the statement of Sant Ram recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that complicity of this applicant along with co-accused Kamta have been alleged, however, in the investigation name of Kamta has been dropped along with other three accused persons.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that the incident is of 09.01.2021; charges were framed on 22.011.2021; till date only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and the main witness i.e. Sant Ram (injured) has not been examined till date, so also considering the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693", coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2021 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Santosh Kumar, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 41/2021, under Sections 307/34 IPC, Police Station - Bilgram, District - Hardoi, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶19

witness.

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

(v) 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.

¶23

(vi) 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 31.8.2024 R.C.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Himanshu Singh @ Rishu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Rahish Vs State of U.P. Secy. Home Lko. and Anothers

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. and Another

Ram Anuj and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dinesh Mourya @ Dinesh Kumar Mourya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. Home and Another

Aman Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others