Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024BAIL/9175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9175 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to Sangam Soni charged under Sections 392 and 411 IPC. The court considered his criminal history, on-spot arrest, and co-accused's bail while invoking Article 21 before imposing specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties under specific conditions including non-tampering with evidence and mandatory court appearance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83235

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9175 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Baksh Singh,Alok Singh,Arti Shukla

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Asif Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 202 of 2024, under Sections 392 & 411 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. He submits that the police has shown the applicant to be arrested on spot though he was passing by the place of incident and was never involved in committing the offence as police has also failed to connect the applicant with the offence. He next added that identically situated co-accused, namely, Sanjay Soni has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6722 of 2024 vide order dated 24.6.2024 passed by this Court and applicant is seeking parity of the same. Further, there are nine cases criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 14 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 6.5.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence as he was arrested on spot by the police, and, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there are nine cases criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 14 of

¶13

the bail application; the applicant is a law abiding citizen; it seems that the applicant was passing by the place of occurrence; identically situated co-accused, namely, Sanjay Soni has already been enlarged on bail; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.5.2024.

¶14

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 case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Sangam Soni 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly

¶22

confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Shravan

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangam Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. 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

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Sukesh Rajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Kuldeep Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sumit Chauhan @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ayan @ Shoeb Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Kanchanu @ Kunti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko