Allowed

Sonu Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024BAIL/845/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench allowed the bail application of Sonu Kumar Maurya, a co-accused in a case under sections 306 and 506 IPC. The grant was based on the prior release of two other co-accused and the applicant's lack of criminal history, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions prohibiting evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and ensuring court attendance.

Sonu Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9371

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 845 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.336 of 2023, under Sections 306, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Ramkot, District Sitapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that on the same allegations, the co-accused Hari Prasad and Putana has been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 & 17.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.12070 of 2023 & 527 of 2024 respectively. He submits that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 24.07.2023.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2023, applicant has no criminal history, the bail application is allowed on the same reasoning as disclosed in the bail orders of co-accused Hari Prasad as well as Putana (supra).

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Sonu Kumar Maurya be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.2.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶21

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

Sonu Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Isahak Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow

Naiem @ Motu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Jabbar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Arif Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Mateen Ahmad Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others