Allowed

Ankit Kumar Saroj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/3849/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Court No. 75 allowed bail to Ankit Kumar Saroj in a Case Crime under Sections 363 and 370 IPC for abduction and recovery of a child. The court found the applicant's case for bail made out and imposed conditions regarding attendance and appearance at critical stages of trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in required amount subject to specified conditions.

Ankit Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3849 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Nand Yadav,Ajay Raj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Mr.Krishna Nand Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Ankit Kumar Saroj with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.331 of 2020, under Section 363, 370 IPC, Police Station Shahaganj, District-Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that as per F.I.R. version, child was abducted on 24.11.2020 and recovered from the possession of the co-accused Sarita Devi, Meera Devi, Kamal Kumar Kanojiya. It is next submitted that the main role is assigned to co-accused Kamal Kumar Kanojiya, who has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2021, which is mentioned in Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is next submitted that the co-accused, namely, Sarita Devi, Meera Devi have also been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 16.08.2021, 17.03.2021 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.32307 of 2021 and 10969 of 2021 and the role of the applicant stands on better footing than the case of the co-accused. It is next submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 04.12.2021.

¶8

Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact .

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the

¶11

learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant-Ankit Kumar Saroj involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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.

¶16

(iv) 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 26.5.2022

¶19

¶20

Digitally signed by PRITI SHARMA Date: 2022.05.26 17:49:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit Kumar Saroj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar Saroj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaiya Lal Gaud Vs State of U.P.

Kaleem Vs State of U.P.

Murslin Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Mobin Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Kishanpal@ Karru Vs State of U.P.