Allowed

Raju Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2022/4961/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bail application was allowed. The court granted bail to the applicant accused of murder, noting he had a general role only and co-accused were already released. Conditions included personal bond, sureties, and attendance requirements.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the applicant on bail on execution of a personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

Raju Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4961 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Preeti, Advocate holding brief of Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Raju Saroj for grant of bail in Case Crime No. 837 of 2019, under Sections 452, 302, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No such incident took place, as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons, named in the F.I.R. The prosecution has not assigned any specific role to the applicant or any of the accused persons named in the F.I.R. and general allegation has been levelled to all the accused persons regarding hitting the deceased by danda.

¶8

Leaned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per post-mortem report, the cause of death is ante-mortem injury and there are total six injuries. He further submits that the deceased succeeded injuries because he fell down from the roof through staircase and succumbed injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant for hitting the deceased and general role has been assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by this Court sympathetically.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the similarly circumstanced and identically placed other coaccused, namely Bipin Kumar Saroj and Anarkali have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6063 of 2021. He further submits that the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-

¶11

accused, Bipin Kumar Saroj and Anarkali, who have been assigned the similar role, therefore, the applicant should also be released on bail by this Court sympathetically on the ground of parity.

¶12

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 06.11.2020 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer for bail but did not dispute this fact that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant for hitting the deceased and general role has been assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons and similarly circumstanced and identically placed other co-accused Bipin Kumar Saroj and Anarkali have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶14

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant for hitting the deceased and general role has been assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons and similarly circumstanced and identically placed other co-accused Bipin Kumar Saroj and Anarkali have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court; as per post-mortem report, the cause of death is ante-mortem injury and there are total six injuries and there is no specific allegation against the applicant in causing injuries to the deceased as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P.

¶15

and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant, Raju Saroj, involved in Case Crime No. 837 of 2019, under Sections 452, 302, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶18

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶20

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶25

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶26

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶28

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 merit of the case.

¶29

Order Date :- 22.8.2022 Arvind

¶30

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.23 15:38:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko

Smt. Phool Mati W/O Late Sri Ram Sawaroop and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Lallu S/O Karamat (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Central Bureau of Investigation through Inspector Vs Brijendra Pal Singh and 3 Ors.

Amarjeet S/O Shri Asharam Goswamii Vs State of U.P. Thru the Secy Home Deptt Lko