Allowed

Harsh Sonkar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Home Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024/7520/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granted bail to applicant Harsh Sonkar in a case involving Sections 394 and 411 IPC. Despite the applicant's prior criminal history, the court relied on the fact that a co-accused had already been released and granted bail on bond with conditions ensuring presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

Harsh Sonkar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47267

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7520 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Harsh Sonkar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Nath Pandey,Ram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Attreya Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 183 of 2024, under Sections 394, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next submits that identically situated co-accused Prince Sonker, has already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.6.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6958 of 2024. There is two cases' criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para7 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 2.5.2024. In case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused has already been released by this Court.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that identically situated coaccused Prince Sonker, has already been granted bail by this Court; there is two cases' criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; the applicant is a law abiding citizen; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 2.5.2024.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Harsh Sonkar involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.7.2024 Ram Murti

¶20

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

Harsh Sonkar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh Sonkar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry 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

Nikhil Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Biki Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

Sadhusaran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Krishna Kumar @ Ram Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shiv Kumar Goshwami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mata Prasad Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 7 Others