Allowed

Mahesh Chandra Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2024BAIL/3185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) discharged the applicant on bail in a criminal case involving alleged attack on victims of a family dispute under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. The court considered the rival affidavits and the nature of allegations before granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Mahesh Chandra Soni vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28187

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3185 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Saakshi Pandey,Prabhat Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Pandey,Ram Suphal

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No. 132 of 2023 under Sections 307, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is basically a family dispute between the parties. The informant is the minor son who has made his allegations against his own father to the effect that while his mother and grand-mother were sleeping, the applicant is said to have attacked both his wife and his mother and tried to throttle. It is when the victims felt uncomfortable, they raised a noise that the neighbours intervened and thereafter the applicant fled.

¶10

It is also stated in the First Information Report falsely that the present applicant is also involved in another case whereby he had killed his own father.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant states that a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein the details of the case filed against the applicant has been mentioned and he has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Today, again a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant which is on record.

¶13

It is stated that the informant had made the said compliant under misconception a the behest of certain villagers who were having an evil eye over the property of the applicant. It is further alleged that it is an incorrect averment and moreover the injury report which has been brought on record also does not

¶14

support the version as contained in the First Information Report. The applicant has been languishing in Jail since 05.04.2023.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

Having perused the material on record, it reveals that the FIR has been lodged by the minor son in respect of an alleged incident wherein the mother and grand mother of the applicant are said to be the victim. The victims have field an affidavit in support of the applicant with the bail application. The mother of the informant does no support the incident, hence, considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant Mahesh Chandra Soni involved in Case Crime No. 132 of 2023 under Sections 307, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶18

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶19

(i) 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.

¶20

(ii) 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.

¶21

(iii) 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.

¶22

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 Asheesh

¶25

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

Mahesh Chandra Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chandra Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. 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

Amit Engineers vs Modern Coach Factory

Atiqur Rahman vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Smt Mohra and Others Vs D.D.C.and Others

Chandrawati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Maa Madhuri Private Industrial Training Institute, Ballia Thru. Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Ministry and Ors.

Aqbal Bahadur Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others