Allowed

Rahul Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024/15398/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail to the applicant after observing that the FIR and statement of the sole injured person did not assign the role of assault to the applicant, who had no prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Rahul Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:839

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15398 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. 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 is taken on record.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary of the case.

¶8

Heard Shri Manuvendra Singh, 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- Rahul Saroj for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.0248 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 the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶11

It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the main injured namely Ashish Saroj, role of assault has not been assigned to the applicant and the same has been assigned to other accused persons and thus admittedly the applicant has not participated in the assault/ maarpeet , which has allegedly occurred at the relevant date and time.

¶12

It is further submitted that statement of other two injured persons namely Rishi Saroj and Raj Kali would not be relevant as they claimed to have sustained injuries while Rishi Saroj has not sustained any visible injury as he has stated only about complain of pain before the Doctor, which has been duly noted and there is no injury report available with regard to other injured namely Raj Kali and their claim to have been injured in

¶13

the alleged incident could not be believed.

¶14

It is also submitted that if the statement of sole injured is taken on its face, it would emerge that at the most the applicant was present at the spot as the genesis of the incident had started with a scuffle of him with Manjeet Saroj and beyond that there is no involvement of the applicant in the maarpeet , which admittedly had occurred thereafter.

¶15

It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 10.10.2023 and he is not having any criminal history, chargesheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶16

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that three persons are shown to have sustained injuries in the incident. Apart from injured Ashish Saroj, other two persons namely Rishi Saroj and Raj Kali have also claimed to have sustained injuries, however, medical report of injured Rishi Saroj would reveal only complain of pain and there is no medical report available with regard to injured Raj Kali. The only injured Ashish Saroj in his statement has assigned the role of assault to other accused persons and has not stated anything about the applicant except that the quarrel had started between the applicant and his brother Manjeet Saroj. F.I.R. is also filed to the tune that the injured persons were assaulted by other accused persons and not by the applicant, therefore, the role of the applicant is distinguishable from the role of other accused persons. Chargesheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 10.10.2023 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶18

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶19

Let the accused/applicant- Rahul 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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 of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 Anupam S/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

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

Sangam Verma @ Sangam Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Om Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Satyam Pandey Alias Ashutosh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Shahbaj Ahmad @ Sabloo Vs Sate of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ram Prakash vs C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.

Mohd. Shahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.