Allahabad High Court
Sonu Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116199
Reserved On:- 15.05.2023
Delivered On:- 24.05.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1454 of 2022
Appellant :- Sonu Sharma
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ehtesham Akhtar,Abhilasha Singh,Anuruddh Chaturvedi,Ashutosh Yadav,Jitendra Kumar,Shyam Lal,Virendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Shiromani Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party and the learned AGA for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, Sonu Sharma, to set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Amroha has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 124 of 2021, under Sections- 302, 452 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Naugawan Sadat, District- Amroha.
3. There is allegation in the FIR that the sister of the informant had relationship with the appellant, Sonu Sharma. Few years ago when the appellant got married, his relationship with his sister came to an end but he wanted to forcibly contact her. On 29.03.2021, about 5:15 p.m., appellant came to his house where apart from his sister, his mother, Santosh and wife, Julie, were present. His sister asked the appellant to leave the house, but he refused, and then she made a call to his brother, Bablu and the informant came. Informant asked the appellant to leave the house and his brother, Bablu, tried to dial number 112 when the appellant fired at him from the country made pistol in his possesion. The appellant and his wife tried to apprehend him but he pushed them. His sister ran towards the market and she was also chased by the appellant but because of the crowd there he vanished with his two unknown friends on motorcycle. The brother of the informant died on the spot. Hence, the implication of the appellant was made.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of false implication. Recovery of a country made pistol and two live cartridges were made from the appellant by the police. It is improbable that a person involved in commission of offence of murder, will keep the fire arm with him instead of throwing or hiding it at some place. The appellant had no motive to commit the alleged offence. It was for the informant and the deceased, Bablu, who had motive against the appellant since he was trying to forcibly contact his sister. This is the first implication of the appellant. Charge-sheet has been submitted against him on 06.05.2021 and 4 out of 22 witnesses have only been examined till date. The appellant has been implicated subsequently in a case under section 25 Arms Act and is in jail since 30.03.2021.
5. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon in the judgment of apex court. In the case of Atul Thakur versus State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2018 (SC) 570 and has submitted that the case will not travel beyond section 304(II) IPC, since the incident happened on account of sudden quarrel and without pre-meditation.
6. Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed to the submissions and has stated that the appellant, while in jail, is making threatening call from certain mobile numbers to the sister of the informant to withdraw the aforesaid case and enter into compromise. Otherwise he will eliminating his entire family while still in jail. She has subsequently lodged the FIR dated 23.04.2022 under section 507 IPC against him.
7. Counsel for the informant further submits that the judgment in the case of Atul Thakur (Supra) relied by the counsel for the appellant will not help since the possession of arms by the appellant at the time of incident shows that he had gone to the house of the informant, with intention to either kill the sister of the informant, with whom he had long affair or anyone who comes in between them. It is a case of gruesome murder inside the house of the informant. The appellant was clearly the aggressor. He does not deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court.
8. Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail application of the appellant.
9. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for grant of bail the appellant at this stage.
10. The criminal appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Order of the court below is affirmed.
11. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 24.05.2023
Rohit
