Sanjay vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74257

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8519 of 2025

Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vijay Tripathi,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7708 of 2024, copy of order has been annexed as Annexure no.1 to this affidavit.

¶7

Heard Mr. Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel fort the informant and perused the material available on record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.377 of 2023, under Sections 304 and 427 IPC, Police Station Araon, District Firozabad.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village party bandi. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.10.2023 and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial because there are eight prosecution witnesses and only informant has been examined as PW-1 and rest seven witnesses are to be examined. There is no chance of tempering with the evidence as the informant, who is the alleged eye witness, has already been examined. Further submission is that as per version of the FIR as well as statement of witnesses, offence under Section 304 IPC is not attracted in the present case because there was no motive or intention of the applicant to commit such crime in as much as prosecution witnesses also failed to attribute any strong motive against the applicant for committing crime in question, therefore, in absence of any strong motive false implication of applicant in the instant criminal case cannot be ruled out. As to who was the

¶10

author of the said injury is also not clear. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304 IPC are completely missing. Prima facie no offence under Section 304 IPC is made out against the applicant.

¶11

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.10.2023 having no previous criminal history.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶14

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

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant 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 229A IPC.

¶17

(iii) 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on

¶19

dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 8.5.2025

¶25

Ajeet

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. State of U.P.

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

Girishchandra Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Chanda Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Bind vs State of U.P.

Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.

Dilawar and Another vs State of U.P.

Smt Chanda Devi vs State of U.P. and 10 Others