SANJAY v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO.
BAIL/3524/2025 · 2025-04-28
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 136544 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 136544 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23987 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3524 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwajeet Singh,Moni Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Vishwajeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the informant and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Nagram, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 25.08.2023 against four persons, namely, Rakesh, Sanjay (applicant), Suneel and Ajit stating that due to dispute regarding blowing horn of vehicle, while the complainant's younger brother was driving his Van along with helper Awadhesh Verma, all the accused persons beat up the informant's brother with sticks and axe causing serious injuries to him. Upon receiving information of the incident, the informant and his son reached the spot and they took him to CHC Mohanlalganj from where he was referred to Trauma Center, PGI. Upon arrival at Trauma Center, PGI, the victim was declared dead. 4. During investigation, the informant reiterated the FIR version. The statement of helper of the vehicle Awdhesh Verma was recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein he stated that
he had seen co-accused Ajit Yadav assaulting the victim with stick. When he cried, several persons ran there and co-accused Ajit Yadav escaped from filed. He stated that he had himself seen Ajit Yadav assaulting Akhilesh Yadav by hitting him on his head. Besides Ajit Yadav, no other person was involved in beating Akhilesh Yadav. 5. In the additional statement of the informant, he stated that Awadhesh Verma had seen all four named persons assaulting the deceased. In response to a specific question put by the Investigating Officer, the informant stated that no eye witness had informed him about involvement of all the four persons in committing the offence.
He has no evidence regarding involvement of the other three persons (including the applicant) in commission of the offence but as all those three persons are brothers of Ajit, naturally he must have been involved in commission of offence. 6. Initially the Investigating Officer had submitted a charge sheet against co-accused Ajit Yadav only. After statements of two prosecution witnesses have been recorded, applicant and his brothers Sanjay and Sunil have been summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by means of of an order dated
05.11.2024. 7. The learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail and they have submitted that the applicant has been summoned to face trial when the trial court found a strong case against him and summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR states that the solitary eye witness of the incident was Awadhesh Verma and
Awadhesh had categorically stated that the deceased had been assaulted by Ajit Yadav and by no other person and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 9. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Sanjay be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 28.4.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench