Santosh Sao v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47159 of 2023 Applicant :- Santosh Sao Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2023, under Sections 363, 311, 370 (5) IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Anuradha Devi in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. The victim was recovered from the possession of co-accused Nand Lal Ram. At this stage, there is no cogent evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Gudiya Devi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46240 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 13 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 02.06.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA and learned 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 the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Anuradha Devi in police custody. The victim was recovered from the possession of co-accused Nand Lal Ram. Identically placed co-accused Gudiya Devi has been granted bail by this Court. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. The applicant has remained confined for more than six months 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 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 Santosh Sao, 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 the 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 :- 13.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad