Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41291 of 2023 Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Laxmi Narayan Rathour Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2022, under Sections 308, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Four persons including the applicant are alleged to have caused injury on the head of Pramod Kumar. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the injury on the head of the injured. As per the medical report, the injured received a single injury on his head. Prior to the instant case the applicant was involved in Case Crime No. 300 of 2021 under Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station Jalaun, District Jalaun. The applicant is in jail since 02.09.2023 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the injury on the head of the injured. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Suneel Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad