Allahabad High Court
Sonu vs State Of U.P. on 21 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21225 of 2019
Applicant :- Sonu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report of the alleged incident has been lodged with delay of one day against five persons including the applicant. In first information report, it has been mentioned that some hot talk has taken place in between the deceased and Sonu (applicant), co-accused Vinod, Peetam and Kuldeep on 21.3.2019 at about 3.00 p.m. After two hours, the grand son of the complainant namely Vijay was coming back from the field. The accused persons surrounded him and began to assault upon him. The co-accused Akrant assaulted upon the leg of the deceased with danda. The applicant, Vinod and Peetam caused injury to the deceased on his head with bricks. Kuldeep has also made fire. According to post mortem report, 3 injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. Injury no. 1 is stitch wound 3 cm with dressing over back of head 10 cm from Rt ear. The injury no. 2 is on his leg and injury no. 3 is abrasion. According to postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown coma due to ante mortem head injury. Only one injury has been found on the head of the deceased but it is not specified as to who is author of head injury. There is general allegation against the applicant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It has further been submitted that co-accused Peetam having identical role has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 7.5.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19319 of 2019, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 21.3.2019.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant and other co-accused have committed the alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Sonu involved in Case Crime No. 135 of 2019, under section 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Pilkhuwa, District Hapur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 21.5.2019
Masarrat
