Sonu vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48035

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2177 of 2025

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Srivastava,Rayoof Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Neeraj Srivastava and Shri Yayoof Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant second application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Session Trial No.159 of 2019 (State vs. Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0159 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and in her dying declaration, deceased stated that he alongwith his brother, mother and sister ablazed her but he is pressing the instant second bail application mainly on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 26.06.2019 i.e. for last more than five and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

¶9

He further submits that till date, out of total 16 witnesses of the charge sheet, only four witnesses could be examined and considering this fact, a report was called from the court concerned with regard to current status of the trial of the case, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects that inspite of repeated orders passed by the trial court, prosecution witnesses are not turning before the trial court and this fact clearly suggests that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

¶10

He further submits that from the report of the court concerned dated 18.03.2025, it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial and therefore, it appears, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been infringed.

¶11

He further submits that law is by far now settled that if fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused is violated then even in serious cases he can be released on bail on the basis of his long incarceration.

¶12

He further submits that even from the dying declaration of the deceased, it reflects, she also made allegation against her devar, mother-in-law and sister-in-law but they have already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as far as dying declaration of the deceased is concerned, case of applicant is at par with them.

¶13

He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit.

¶14

Per contra, learned Brief Holder opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of

¶15

the applicant and he is husband of the deceased but could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and deceased in her dying declaration stated that he alongwith his brother, mother and sister ablazed her but it reflects, he is in jail in the present matter since 26.06.2019 i.e. for last more than five and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

¶18

Considering the long incarceration of the applicant a report was called from the court concerned, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects that till date, out of total 16 witnesses of the charge sheet, only four witnesses could be examined and inspite of repeated orders passed by the trial court, remaining witnesses are not appearing before the trial court and therefore, it reflects, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

¶19

Further, from the report of the court concerned dated 18.03.2025, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any delay in trial and therefore, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed.

¶20

Further, law is by far now settled that if fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused is violated then even in serious cases he

¶21

can be released on bail on the basis of his long incarceration.

¶22

Further, from the dying declaration of the deceased, it reflects that in her dying declaration, she made allegation also against her devar, mother-in-law and sister-in-law alongwith applicant and they have already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶23

Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit.

¶24

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Sonu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the

¶31

prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶32

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶33

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Zafar

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Omendra vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Zafar @ Saif vs State of U.P. and Another

Mobin vs State of U.P.

Farookh @ Gurjar vs State of U.P.

Shivam vs State of U.P.

Santosh Yadav vs State of U.P.