Allowed

Sanavvar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025BAIL/1535/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS. The court noted lack of independent witnesses for alleged recovery and absence of evidence regarding tampering risks despite the applicant's criminal history, granting bail on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions.

Sanavvar vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15439

¶2

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1535 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanavvar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachchida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 630 of 2024, under Sections 305, 317(2) BNS, Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested along with another co-accused in Case Crime No. 638 of 2024, under Sections 3/4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of a country made pistol and Indian currency of Rs. 4,500/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 12 of the affidavit and para 5 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 16.12.2024 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶9

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, except the confessional statement of the applicant there is no substantive evidence against him.

¶10

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the

¶11

applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶12

In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

¶13

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶14

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶15

Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Sanavvar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶17

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶18

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶20

(iv) shall appear on first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.2.2025

¶23

Lbm/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanavvar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanavvar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Alias Parvez vs State of U.P. and Another

Kripa Shankar Bind vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kishan @ Bantoo vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar @ Ulfat vs State of U.P.

Rahul Jatav vs State of U.P.

Ambika Patel vs State of U.P.