Allowed

Sadan Kumar @ Chandan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024BAIL/5521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sadan Kumar in a case under sections 307 and 120B IPC. The court noted the absence of an independent public eyewitness and weak identification due to the injuries being on the back. Bail was granted with conditions prohibiting evidence tampering and ensuring presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance and behavior.

Sadan Kumar @ Chandan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74735

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5521 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sadan Kumar @ Chandan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant : - Ramesh Chandra Gupta,Ankit Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ankit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwa Nath Nishad, 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 the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0254/2023, under Sections 307, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Mall, District Lucknow.

¶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 submitted that the allegation made in the F.I.R. that the present applicant has opened fire over the back of the injured and he has received firearm injury, but the fact remains that there is no independent public eye witness of the aforesaid incident and it is an improbable story that if a person receives injury of firearm over his body from his back, he would identify the person, who opened fired. He submits that there is no motive assigned and it seems that on instance of someone, the name of the present applicant has been implicated in the F.I.R. He also added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 06-04-2024. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the insured has named the present applicant but he has failed to with respect to the probability of identifying the person who has opened fire from the back and after receiving injury from the back.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06-04-2024; there is no independent public eye witness of the incident and there is least possibility of identification of the present applicant by the injured, as the

¶11

fire was opened from the back of the injured. The Court has also taken note of the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and the motive is weak; coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

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 fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant-Sadan Kumar alias Chandan, 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

¶19

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Arvind

¶22

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

Sadan Kumar @ Chandan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadan Kumar @ Chandan 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

Smt. Usha Singh and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Rama Kant Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police Central Bureau

Rajendra Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs State of U.P and Another

Shiv Pratap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Dr. Pradeep Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Lko. and 3 Others

Mohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Prin. Secy. Lko.