Shubham Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19121

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 565 of 2025

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Prakash Singh,Pradeep Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Kishore Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwakar Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶8

This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 106/2024, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh. First bail application No. 7928 of 2024 was rejected by means of an order dated 31.08.2024. While rejecting the first bail application, this Court had granted liberty to the applicant to revive his prayer for release on bail after the witnesses of facts are recorded or expiry of a period of six months, whichever is earlier.

¶9

A copy of statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded by the trial court have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit and, therefore, this second bail application is being pressed on this ground.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 21.03.2024 against three unknown persons, stating that while the informant's brother was going with his son to drop him to his college on his motorcycle, three unknown

¶11

persons shot at his chest. Son of the deceased tried to catch the assailants but they escaped while brandishing their weapons and threatening to kill the person.

¶12

The post mortem examination report mentions a single fire arm injury on chest of the deceased and cause of death was opined to be ante mortem firearm injury.

¶13

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of statements recorded during investigation and a copy of the charge sheet submitted on 12.06.2024. During investigation it came to light that son of the deceased, who was accompanying him at the time of the incident, himself had conspired for killing of his father with the assistance of his friends, including the applicants, and they had hired three persons, who have given effect to the incident. It has come to light that Rs. 45,000/- had been transferred from the bank account of father of Shubham Soni in two transactions but the learned AGA could not point out as to in whose account this money had been transferred.

¶14

Copies of statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded by the trial court had been brought on record along with the rejoinder affidavit. PW-1 is the informant, who has not witnessed the incident and he merely reiterated the FIR version. PW-2 Siraj Ahmad also has not witnessed the incident and no significant fact has come to light in this examination by the trial court. The deceased's son Saif, who has been made an accused, has been granted bail treating him to be juvenile.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegation against the applicant is having been involved in a conspiracy with the deceased's son; that the only evidence to support the allegation of involvement in commission of conspiracy is transfer of Rs.

¶16

45,000/- in two transactions from the bank account of father of Subham Soni and the learned AGA could not point out as to whom the amount had been transferred and as to how this transfer of amount connects the applicant with the commission of the offence and the applicants are young man aged 19 years having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 23.03.2024, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant - Shubham Soni be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Pradeep/-

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Soni 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. and 3 Others

Kandhai Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shailendra Kumar Jayant Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Pawan Kumar Godiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Bablu @ Amar Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Pushpa Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another