Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024BAIL/1651/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sandeep Sahu, an accused in a rape case, citing lack of corroboration in prosecution, voluntary cooperation at framing stage, and no criminal antecedents, requiring sureties and personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties each with specific conditions against tampering, intimidation, and absence, including provisions for proclamation and IPC 174-A proceedings.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15751

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1651 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Nag,Kashi Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J .

¶7

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

¶8

It is alleged in the prosecution case that in the intervening night of 7/8-05.2023 at about 1:00 pm, the accused-applicant entered in the house where she was sleeping with her sister and by putting pistol, the accused compelled her to undress and made attempt to commit rape upon her.

¶9

It has been further submitted that initially he was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. The copy of the order is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application. It is further submitted that he cooperated in the trial; he was present during framing of charge, however, due to covid, he could not be informed by his counsel about the listing of the case and consequently, nonbailable warrants have been issued and the applicant has been arrested on 22.12.2023.

¶10

It has been further submitted that the prosecution story is highly improbable. There was no occasion for the applicant to intrude into the house of the victim while she was sleeping with her sister. There is no corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution story.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.12.2023 without having any criminal antecedent there

¶12

is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that the victim has been examined before the trial court; there is no chance of tampering evidence, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.12.2023 without having any criminal antecedent 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, Sandeep Sahu, involved in Case Crime No. 317/2013, under Sections 376/511/506 IPC, Police Station - Thakurganj, District - Lucknow, 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 witness.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶21

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 :- 21.2.2024 R.C.

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Manish Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Vineet Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Udai Raj Maurya Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.