# Sonu v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1078
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-09-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1372 of 2014
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonu-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-43354
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section
439-Bail
applicationoffence under Section 302-considering
allegation of honor killing
-applicant
being real brother of deceased-brutally
done to death-considering post crime
conduct, gravity of offence-no case for
bail-rejected.
Held: Para-8
Looking to the nature of offence, its
gravity and the evidence in support of it
and the overall circumstances of this
case, this Court is of the view that the
applicant has not made out a case for
3 All]
Sonu Vs. State of U.P.
1079
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the
applicant is rejected.

## Text

1078
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order of the nature upon which the reference
is made would not be amenable to a special
appeal not being a judgement. The Division
Bench will have to decide in the facts of each
case, the nature of the order passed by a
Single Judge while determining whether the
appeal is maintainable.
45.
In view of the aforesaid
discussions, we answer the question of law
referred to the Full Bench by holding that, an
order of a learned Single Judge upon a
petition under Articles 226 or 227 of the
Constitution only calling for counter and
rejoinder affidavits is merely a procedural
order in aid of the progression of the case.
An order of this nature which is purely of a
procedural nature in aid of the progression of
the case and to enable the Court to form a
considered view after a counter affidavit and
a rejoinder are filed would not be amenable
to a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule
5. Such an order does not decide anything
nor does it have the trappings of finality. If a
party to the proceedings seeks to press an
application for ad interim relief of a
protective nature even before a counter
affidavit is filed, on the ground that a
situation of irretrievable injustice may result
or that its substantive rights would be
adversely affected in the meantime, such an
argument must be addressed before the
Single Judge. If such an argument is urged, it
should be dealt with however briefly,
consistent with the stage of the case, by the
Single Judge. It is for the Division Bench
hearing the special appeal to consider
whether the order decides mattes of moment
or is of such a nature that would affect the
vital and valuable rights of the parties and
causes serious injustice to the concerned
party.
46. The reference to the Full Bench
shall accordingly stand answered in the
aforesaid terms. All these special appeals
shall now be placed before the appropriate
Bench according to the roster of work for
final disposal in the light of this judgment.
47.
Before we conclude, the Court
would like to express its appreciation of the
able assistance rendered to the Court by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State, and by Shri Manish
Goel and Shri Rahul Agarwal who were
appointed by the Court as amicus curiae.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1372 of
2014
Sonu
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.
...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.P. Mishra, Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava,
Sri Omvir Babu, Sri Ratan Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C.-Section
439-Bail
applicationoffence under Section 302-considering
allegation of honor killing
-applicant
being real brother of deceased-brutally
done to death-considering post crime
conduct, gravity of offence-no case for
bail-rejected.
Held: Para-8
Looking to the nature of offence, its
gravity and the evidence in support of it
and the overall circumstances of this
case, this Court is of the view that the
applicant has not made out a case for
3 All]
Sonu Vs. State of U.P.
1079
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the
applicant is rejected.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)
1. This application has been filed
seeking the release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No.136 of 2013, u/s
302 I.P.C., Police Station-Palimukimpur,
District- Aligarh.
2. Counter affidavit filed, taken on
record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A.
4. Perused the record.
5.
Submission of counsel for the
applicant is that this is a case of
circumstantial evidence and there is no eye
witness account of murder available in this
case and the charge sheet against the
applicant is nothing except a conjectural
inference of the investigating Officer without
any sure basis. The applicant himself had
lodged the first information report about the
occurrence which according to the counsel
speaks about the clean conscience of the
applicant. The submission of the counsel is
that actually the deceased had committed
suicide out of shame and fear of social
humiliation.
6.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
prayer for bail and has submitted that this is a
case of honour killing. The deceased was
sister of the first informant and as she had
been seen along with one Subhash in some
objectionable position or compromising
position, she was taken back home by her
brother and then she was strangulated to
death. Further submission is that the most
incriminating
circumstance
against
the
applicant is that though it was a case of
murder, but while giving the information to
the police station the applicant reported the
incident showing it to be a case of suicide.
Learned A.G.A. has drawn the attention of
the Court to the post mortem examination
report of the deceased which shows that not
only the froth was coming out from the
nostrils and the eyes as well as the face were
found congested, the hyoid bone was also
found fractured. In the opinion of the doctor
also the death was the result of strangulation
and not hanging. The submission is that it
was not a case of suicide at all as was shown
or projected by the applicant and the same
misinformation
has
been
completely
disproved by the medical evidence. The
deceased had died within the precincts of her
home
and
how
and
under
what
circumstances she met with her homicidal
death are matters certainly within the
'especial knowledge' of the applicant as
contemplated u/s 106 Evidence Act. It was
the onus of the applicant to explain the
circumstances as to how did she meet with
her end. The explanation offered by the
applicant with regard to her death is not only
inadequate but has been exposed to be false.
The submission is that whatever might have
been the conservative social values of the
applicant and however much objection the
applicant might have had against the
relationship or the meeting of the deceased
with any other boy, the extreme punitive step
taken by the family members of the deceased
is absolutely unpardonable. A helpless girl
who aught to have been protected by the
applicant being his sister was brutally done
to death and then in order to preserve his
ownself from the accusation of murder an
entirely false suicide story was reported to
the police department as a camouflage but
which got exploded completely by the
investigation. The mischievously calculating
1080
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attempt to
bluff the
authorities and
misleading the police with the aim to make it
draw wrong conclusions is an additional
incriminating circumstance to be reckoned
with against the applicant. This post-crime
conduct of the applicant bears an eloquent
testimony to his guilty mind. A.G.A. has also
drawn the attention of the court to certain
statements which were given by certain
witnesses in which extra judicial confession
is said to have been made by the applicant
admitting his guilt.
7. After adverting to the record of the
case in the light of the rival submissions
made at the bar the court is once again
reminded of the old saying that "The living
do not speak the truth with the candour of the
dead." However much the applicant might
have tried to suppress the truth, the deceased,
who spoke from her death through the
autopsy of her cadaver was candid enough to
spill the beans and unveil the truth.The
accused has lied but the deceased did not, nor
did the circumstances of the case. But what
adds to the poignancy of the murder is to see
that the blood has taken the blood of its own
and that too for a reason which was so
unreasonable,
so
irrational
and
so
unjustifiable. To speak the least, the
indefensible and morbid conservatism of the
applicant who treated the adolescent love as
a culpable offence and that too punishable
with death, makes the murder all the more
foul and despicable. The courts of law can
not brook with such crimes which have all
the trappings of primitive orthodox savagery.
8. Looking to the nature of offence,
its gravity and the evidence in support of
it and the overall circumstances of this
case, this Court is of the view that the
applicant has not made out a case for bail.
Therefore, the prayer for bail of the
applicant is rejected.
9. It is clarified that the observations, if
any, made in this order are strictly confined
to the disposal of the bail application and
must not be construed to have any reflection
on the ultimate merits of the case.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 3025 of 2015
Connected with
Matters Under Article 227 No. 3897 of
2015
Jagdish Chand Kashyap
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Malti Agarwal
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Om Prakash Lohia, Sri Noor Sabaa
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Pushkar
Srivastava
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of letting
and
rent)
Act
1972-Section
2(2)
explanation-New
construction-on
same
plaint after complete demolition utilizing
one old wall-new construction completed-in
the year 1987-deposit of rent under Section
30 without protest of inapplicability of Act
1972-exemption from applicability held
proper-reliance placed upon of Gopal Das
case-misconceived-in that case question
referred was apart protection of tenant and
not
applicability-against
concurrent
findings of Court below-High Court not to
interfere-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-26
As regards absence of fresh assessment,
it may be noted that under clause (a)
Explanation-1
section
2(2),
in
case
where fresh assessment has not been