Allowed

Shama Alias Shyama Saroj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022BAIL/31239/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judgment in a bail application from Court No. 79, Allahabad High Court. The Single Bench allowed the application, releasing the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, citing flaws in the FIR, lack of medical evidence, and false implication of a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Shama Alias Shyama Saroj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31239 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shama Alias Shyama Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjeet Asthana

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2022, under Sections 323, 308, 506 IPC, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodge on 03.06.2022 against three named accused persons i.e. (i) Indal (ii) Shama Saroj (the applicant) and (iii) Surendra Saroj, alleging that when the informant's grand son had gone to attend a wedding ceremony on 29.05.2022 at about 11:00 p.m. the accused persons assaulted him with sticks, hockey and fists, due to which, the informant's grand son became unconscious. He was taken to a private Hospital in Jaunpur from where he was referred to Trauma Center, B.H.U. Varanasi.

¶8

In the statement of the injured person recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that the persons who had beaten him up were addressing each other as Shyama and Indal from which he came to know their names and he stated that the other co-accused Surendra Saroj was not involved in the incident.

¶9

It is recorded in the Case Diary that no medical documents have been provided to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer found the implication of the named accused person Surendra Saroj to be wrong and another person Karan Saroj has been added as an accused.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has no criminal history.

¶11

The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2022.

¶12

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶13

By means of an order dated 29.07.2022, the learned counsel for the informant

¶14

had been granted two weeks' time to file a counter affidavit, however, no counter affidavit has been filed till date.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 29.05.2022 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 03.06.2022; that the informant is not an eye witness of the incident; that the Investigating Officer has recorded that no documents regarding medical treatment of the injured person had been provided to him; that the implication of one of the co-accused persons has been found to be false and that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 10.06.2022, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Shama Alias Shyama Saroj be released on bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2022, under Sections 323, 308, 506 IPC, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Jaswant

¶24

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.20 11:40:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shama Alias Shyama Saroj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shama Alias Shyama Saroj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rupak Chaubey Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Khan Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Yadav Vs State of U.P.