Sonu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47529 of 2023 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Learned AGA submits that notice of the instant application has been served in the office of opposite party no.4 on 7.11.2023. The notice has also been served on opposite party no.2 informant on

6.11.2023. However when the case is called out no one appeared on behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶2The present bail application has been filed by the applicant to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 160 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Dadon, District Aligarh during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant was granted bail by this Court on 12.10.2017. Though, the applicant participated in the trial for considerable period, the trial could not conclude and at the same time due to unavoidable reasons the applicant could not appear before the court concerned on 5.8.2023. Consequently, coercive measures were issued by the trial court. On

13.10.2023, the applicant surrendered before the trial Court and since then he is in jail. Learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of instructions submits that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall appear regularly before the trial court and shall not leave the station without permission of the court concerned.

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

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant had earlier appeared and contested the proceedings, however, the trial could not conclude and further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one month and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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 intimidate the witness, 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-Sonu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

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

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶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 :- 20.11.2023 S.S. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad