Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2114 of 2018 Appellant :- Sunny Sahu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Singh,Ajay Vikram Yadav,Raja Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA Sri Ravi Prakash Bhatt. None is present for opposite party no. 2 whereas counter affidavit of opposite party no. 2 is on the file.
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.3.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar where by the Bail Application No. 919 of 2018 of the appellant arising out of case crime no. 382 of 2017 under section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, police station Rail Bazar, district Kanpur Nagar was rejected.
In nutshell the prosecution case is tht Anup Kumar younger brother of the complainant Sanjay Kumar lodged FIR by moving application under section 156(3) with these allegations that his younger brother Anup Kumar was serving in Gopal Hotel on the salary of Rs. 8000/- per month. The owner of the hotel Gopal Sahu and his son was not making regular payment of salary to Anup Kumar, thus rupees two lakhs of Anup Kumar became due on the owner of the hotel and his son. On 25.8.2017 when Anup Kumar demanded his money from the owner of the hotel and his so then they abused him and intimidated to kill him. Anup Kumar was weeping when he was tilling this facts to the complainant. At about 9:00 am Sachin informed the complainant by phone that Anup Kumar is not coming to hotel on his duty, when Sachin went to the room of Anup Kumar who was in Kumhar Mandi and saw that 4-5 police personnel are standing outside his room. He also peeped into the room and found that the body of Anup Kumar was hanging in the room. Sachin informed the complainant and complainant reached Kanpur at the room of Anup Kumar there he came to know that the dead body of Anup Kumar has already been taken to mortuary. He doubt that Gopal Sahu owner of the hotel and his son Sunny Sahu has murdered his brother Anup Kumar.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no concerned with the suicide of Anup Kumar and whereas learned AGA opposed the prayer of bail on the ground that the offence alleged to be committed is very heinous in nature.
Anup Kumar has committed suicide in his room which was situated in Kumhar Mandi. He did not commit suicide in the Gopal Hotel or in its premises. Gopal Sahu and Sunny Sahu are not seen by anybody near the room of Anup Kumar. From the perusal of the inquest report, it is clear that Gopal Sahu has informed the police regarding this occurrence. It is also worth mentioning that occurrence took place on 25.8.2017 and as per FIR itself complainant himself reached Kanpur on 25.8.2017 even then application under section 156(3) Cr.PC is moved on 11.9.2017.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for granting bail. The appeal deserves to be allowed, hence the appeal is allowed and the order dated 27.3.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar where by the Bail Application No. 919 of 2018 of the appellant arising out of case crime no. 382 of 2017 under section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, police station Rail Bazar, district Kanpur Nagar is quashed.
Let the Sunny Sahu involved in case crime no. 382 of 2017 under section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, police station Rail Bazar, district Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of rupees two lakhs and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
1. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not seek adjournment if the witnesses are present in court.
2. The appellant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed either personally or through his counsel on the date fixed for framing of charge and recording of the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.. Appellant shall remain personally present in the court. In case of his absence without sufficient cause the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A of IPC.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 SKS