Arjun Sahani Urf Bholu v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49899 of 2023 Applicant :- Arjun Sahani Urf Bholu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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 No. 62 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 335 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Pataherwa, District Kushinagar during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Dharmendra Yadav, Sahil, Sudhir Saini and Aman Sharma in the police custody. The said statements, insofar as they implicate the applicant, are unreliable. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Sonu Maurya has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34098 of 2023, Sonu Maurya v. State of U.P., vide order dated 10.08.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-21 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 06.07.2023 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 the applicant was not named in the first information report. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Dharmendra Yadav, Sahil, Sudhir Saini and Aman Sharma in the police custody. Identically placed co-accused Sonu Maurya has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months 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-Arjun Sahani alias Bholu, 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 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 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad