Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50088 of 2023 Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Dutt Awasthi Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Dutt Awasthi, counsel for the informant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶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. 103 of 2023, under Sections 408, 420 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station-Phaphund, District-Auraiya, during the pendency of the trial.

3.Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The allegations regarding the purchase of plots and an Eco car has been levelled against the co-accused, Ankit Yadav. At present, there is no cogent evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused, Prashant @ Shivam and Ankit Kumar, have been granted bail by this court vide orders dated

16.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 48673 of 2023 and 48826 of 2023. Prior to the instant case the applicant does not have any criminal history, however after his arrest he has been implicated in other cases. The applicant is in jail since 16.09.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have 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 at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Identically placed co-accused, Prashant @ Shivam and Ankit Kumar, have been granted bail by this court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months 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, 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 of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and, iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶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 :- 1.12.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad