Vijay Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13536

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1391 of 2024

Applicant :- Vijay Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manuvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Vijay Saroj for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, under Sections 147,323,504,506,307 I.P.C., Police Station Sangipur, District Pratapgarh, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. Though in the FIR which has been lodged by the injured himself, the role of assaulting on his head with a stick has been assigned to the instant applicant. However, in the statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 CrPC as well as in the statement of the many other eye-witnesses, general role of assault with 'lathi' has been assigned to all the accused persons and no specific role of any kind has been assigned to the instant applicant.

¶11

It is further submitted that only one fatal injury is shown to have been sustained by the injured and at this stage, it may not be ascertained as to who from amongst the accused persons was the author of fatal injury.

¶12

It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 10.10.2023. Criminal history of one case has been alleged by the State. However, the applicant is not involved in

¶13

that case and is not having any criminal history. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that though in the FIR which has been lodged by the injured himself, the role of assaulting on his head with a stick has been assigned to the instant applicant. However, in the statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 CrPC as well as in the statement of other eye-witnesses, general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the FIR and no overt act or specific role in the incident has been attributed to the instant applicant. The injured has sustained only one fatal injury and the defence of the applicant is that since general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons in the statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 CrPC, at this stage, it may not be ascertained as to who from amongst the accused persons was the author of fatal injury. The applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 10.10.2023 without any criminal history. Charge sheet in this case has also been filed and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the facility of bail may be extended to the applicant. Thus, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Vijay Saroj involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 Shravan/Praveen

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Singh and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit Goyal @ Rohit Goyal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko