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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46128

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8659 of 2024

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- K.K. Singh,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 22.03.2024, the brother of the informant was called by one Priyanka and later on, information was received that about 7 PM, the brother of the informant was lying in an injured condition. When the informant reached the place, it was revealed that in front of door of one Guru Prasad, all the accused were inflicting wounds on the brother of the informant with the use of knife and when the informant tried to intervene, all of them ran away. Subsequently, brother of the informant died while receiving treatment.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. There is no eye-witness in this case. The complainant alleges himself to be the eye-witness. Even as per the allegation made by the complainant, general role has been assigned to 5 accused persons, out of which the name of two accused persons have been dropped by the investigating officer disbelieving the story of the complainant. On a query made by the investigating officer, the complainant could not even specify as to which of the accused persons was holding knife. It is next submitted that the co-accused Sheela and Lalti @ Priyanka have already been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 26.7.2024 and 20.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8066 of 2024 and 8869 of 2024.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25.3.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the bail orders of the co-accused named above so also the fact that as per the post-mortem report, the deceased had sustained three stabbed injuries; the sole eye-witness, complainant could not specify that as to which of the accused persons was holding knife; cause of death is haemorrhage and shock due to ante-mortem injuries; although the allegation was on five accused persons, but the charge-sheet has been filed against three accused persons coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 25.3.2024; as per the statement of learned counsel for the applicant, the trial has not yet commenced and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant- Sandeep involved in Case Crime No. 43 of 2024, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Sammanpur, District- Ambedkarnagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that 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.

¶18

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section

¶20

84 B.N.S.S. 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, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Shravan

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Shiva Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nanbabu @ Ram Ubare Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Abhishek Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nisar Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow