Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 160534 (ALL)

SONU v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO

BAIL/10027/2024 · 2025-02-21

Rajesh Singh Chauhan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11429 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10027 of 2024 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ajey Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sumit Chauhan Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None has appeared for the informant. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.108 of 2024, under Section 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, P.S. Ranipur, District Bahraich. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that on 19.05.2024 at about 8 am, the accused named in the FIR tried to keep the gravel (gitti) on the land owned by the informant which was resisted and because of which the dispute occurred and the accused started hitting the victim with lathi, danda etc., which resulted in substantial injuries and injury to one Dharmendar who subsequently died because of the said injuries. There were four ante mortem injuries noticed on the body of the deceased, as per the postmortem report, which was also the cause of death. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that a cross-FIR was proposed to be registered at the instance of the applicant also, however, the police authorities did not register the FIR. He further argues that even as per the FIR and the statement of the eyewitnesses, the informant was the aggressor because of which the fight started. He argues that no specific allegation of causing the injury has been levelled against any of the accused and general allegations have been levelled. It is lastly argued that nothing has been recovered from the applicant in the form of weapon allegedly used and the applicant continues to be in custody since 21.05.2024 and has no criminal history. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. Considering the allegation against the applicant to be general in nature and the genesis of the dispute being keeping of certain goods, prima-facie, the intent appears to be missing. As such, considering the fact that there is no specific assertion against the applicant and no recovery was affected from the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. Let the applicant Sonu be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. Order Date :- 21.2.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench