Sonu Ahirwar And Another vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 14456 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99728
 
Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18001 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sonu Ahirwar And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, appearing on behalf of Electricity Department as well as Sri Nitin Kesharwani, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No.108 of 2023, under Sections 136 Electricity Act and 379, 411, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitput with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.

4. Admittedly, the applicants are not named in the FIR. The name of the applicants has come up in the statement of arrested co-accused person. Learned counsel has stated that recovery of wires has been planted on the applicants and even his father has been implicated in this case. The said recovery has been made belatedly on 26.3.2023. The FIR itself is delayed by about fifty days. The applicants are in jail since 26.3.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the electricity department as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is heavy recovery from the possession of the applicants who are father and son. There is a criminal history of one case assigned to the applicants. The applicants are not entitled for bail.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the heavy recovery at the pointing out of the applicants, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants.

7. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

Order Date :- 8.5.2023

Vikas