Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024BAIL/10633/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to an applicant charged with explosive offences. Finding the applicant innocent and impugned due to his father's paralyzed health, the court granted bail under Article 21 conditions, requiring sureties and undertakings regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific undertakings regarding trial attendance and witness conduct.

Soljar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76763

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10633 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Soljar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Ranjit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 288/125 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Aaspur Deosara, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the licence of the Fire Crackers was in the name of applicant's father who is suffering from paralysis attack and, therefore, the police has named the present applicant. He submits that there were crackers in the house of the applicant and were exploded due to unknown reasons and, thereafter First Information Report has been lodged. He also added that the licence, which was in the name of the father of the applicant, was expired though it was not in the knowledge of the present applicant. He further submits that the chargesheet has been filed in the matter and the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.07.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that licence of the fire crackers was in the name of applicant's father who is suffering from paralysis attack and for that reason the police has lodged the FIR against the present applicant; the applicant has

¶11

no knowledge about the expiry date of the said licecne; the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.07.2024 having no criminal history to his credit and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Soljar 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 kkv/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soljar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Arya Suman Rastogi vs Regional Manager Bank of Baroda and 3 Others

Ram Gopal Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Jakir Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Surbhi Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Vishal Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko

Smt. Pratibha Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others