Sumit Urf Sonu v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34608 of 2023 Applicant :- Sumit Urf Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Anjali Singh Tomer,Virendra Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶1Heard Ms. Anjali Singh Tomer, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶2Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A is taken on record.

¶3Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is also taken on record.

¶4There is allegation against the applicant in the FIR dated

22.05.2023 with regard to incident dated 07.05.2023 regarding commission of offences under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act.

¶5Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation that the applicant committed the offence of rape on the threat of making obscene video of the victim viral is incorrect. No such video clip has been recovered nor any of the witnesses have stated that any such audio or video clip was heard of seen by them.

¶6Counsel for the applicant also submits that the victim is a married woman. She has falsely implicated the applicant in this case. The applicant is in jail since 30.05.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶7On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶9Let the applicant, Sumit Urf Sonu, involved in Case Crime No. 145 of 2023, under Sections-452, 376, 506 IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station-Bhopa, District-Muzaffarnagar, 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.

(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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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 Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, 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.

¶10In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶11Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 30.10.2023 Rohit High Court of Judicature at Allahabad