Sumit Joshi @ Sunny Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26854

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2689 of 2024 Applicant :- Sumit Joshi @ Sunny Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Jha,Ankita Raina,Atul Bhushan Pandey,Gangeshwar Pandey,Mrs.Suniti Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Sonkar,Ram Kumar Srivastava Ram Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.134 of 2023, under Section 364 IPC, registered at Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow.

¶7

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 12.09.2023 at about 10.00 P.M. son of informant went missing.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which could not evident from the fact that applicant has been nominated in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion of previous enmity. It is submitted that there is no eye witness account pertaining to allegations levelled against applicant and the missing person has not been recovered till date. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 20.09.2023 without trial having commenced.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that contents of FIR clearly indicate complicity of applicant in allegations levelled against him. It is however admitted that victim has not been recovered till date.

¶10

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant

¶11

paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has been nominated in the FIR only on account of suspicion based on previous enmity. It also appears that charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of alleged confessional statement of applicant. There does not appear to be any eye witness account of the allegations. The applicant is under incarceration since 20.09.2023 and as per trial court report dated 21.09.2024 only cognizance has been taken in the case.

¶15

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Sumit Joshi @ Sunny involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction

¶18

of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date : - 7.5.2025 Subodh/-

¶24

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

Sumit Joshi @ Sunny v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Joshi @ Sunny v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Rajlal Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bilkish Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Joshi @ Sunny vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others vs Praveen Singh and Another