Allahabad High Court
Deepu Kumar @ Deepu Sonkar vs State Of U.P. on 20 April, 2016
Bench: Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12315 of 2016
Applicant :- Deepu Kumar @ Deepu Sonkar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 15 of 2016, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Asothar, District Fatehpur.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused-applicant has not been named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive after a period of five days by showing false recovery of Rs. 14,000/- It is further contended that the said money belongs to the applicant. It is next contended that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 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 has 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.2.16 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Deepu Kumar @ Deepu Sonkar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 20.4.2016
Anand
