High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83073 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15827 of 2025 Applicant :- Satish Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,G.A.,Shivendra Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 532 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Bhelupur, District- Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however,
Legal Reasoning
applicant is named in the FIR and as per allegation, applicant along with other accused persons committed the murder of the deceased but even from the record, it reflects, co-accused Vishal Sonkar was the person, who caused fire-arm injury to the deceased. 4. He further submitted that however, during investigation, Investigating Officer also procured CCTV footage of the alleged incident and however, from perusal of the same, it reflects, applicant was present at spot along with other accused but even from the CCTV footage, his complicity could not be revealed. 5. He further submitted that on the basis of CCTV footage, during investigation, co-accused Ritik Sonkar was also made accused and he has been released on bail vide order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8579 of 2025 and considering the CCTV footage, case of applicant is at par with him. 6. He further submitted that however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of eleven other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. He further submitted that majority of the cases were of minor offences and even in one case under Section 395 IPC, he has been acquitted and in remaining other cases, he is on bail. 7. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 13.12.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is specifically named in the FIR and even through CCTV footage his presence was found at the place of incident. 9. They however, could not dispute the fact that there is specific allegation that co-accused Vishal Sonkar caused fire-arm injury to the deceased. They further could not dispute the fact that from the CCTV footage, presence of co-accused Ritik was also found at the place of incident and he has been released on bail after considering details of CCTV footage. 10. They however, further submitted that apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of eleven other cases, therefore, he appears to be hardened criminal but could not dispute the fact that except three cases, all the cases relate to minor offences and out of three cases, one case is however, under Section 395 IPC but in that case, applicant has been acquitted. They however, further submitted, remaining two cases relate to Sections 307, 308 IPC and under the provisions of NDPS Act but could not dispute, in all the cases, applicant is on bail including these two cases. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, applicant along with others committed the murder of deceased and there is also CCTV footagae of the incident, in which, applicant was also visible but applicant was not the person, who caused fire-arm injury to the deceased and as per prosecution, fire-arm injury to the deceased was caused by co-accused Vishal Sonkar. 13. Further, form the CCTV footage, it reflects, along with applicant co-accused Ritik was also present at spot and after considering details of CCTV footage, he has been released on bail. 14. Further, even from the CCTV footage complicity of the applicant could not be reflected and it also could not be reflected that applicant caused any injury to the deceased. 15. Further, however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of eleven other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and except three cases, all the cases, relate to minor offences. Further, out of three cases, one case related to offence under Section 395 IPC, in which applicant has been acquitted and in remaining two cases, which relate to offence under Sections 307, 308 and provisions of NDPS Act, applicant is on bail. 16. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed. 17. Further, law is also settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 18. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 13.12.2024. 19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 21. Let the applicant- Satish Sonkar 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad