Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 575 (ALL)

Adarsh @ Sonu Singh v. State of U. P.

2020-02-20

SIDDHARTH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Siddharth, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Submission is that the applicant was not named in the first information report. After 15 days of the incident one witness, Shri Ram Sharma, has taken the name of the applicant as the person who was also involved in the murder of the deceased, Radhey Shyam Sharma. His name has also been taken by one, Sonu Yadav, who has stated that applicant along with co-accused, Tej Pratap Singh, came at his shop for getting the 'bakhua' (sharp edged weapon) sharpened. The injuries on the person of the deceased are incised wounds. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the recovery of the alleged weapon was made on the pointing of the co-accused, Tej Pratap Singh. In case witness was aware that the applicant was involved in this case why he was waiting for naming him before the Investigating Officer for 15 days. Delay of recording the statement of the witness has not been explained. Applicant alleges false implication in this case. Co-accused, Lalita Katiyar, has been enlarged on bail vide order 06.12.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.54158 of 2019. The applicant is in jail since 26.10.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit. 3. On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions. 4. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 5. Let the applicant, Adarsh @ Sonu Singh, involved in Case Crime No.412 of 2019, under Sections 34/302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Hata, District-Kushi Nagar 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under , then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 6. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.