Allowed

Kamal Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024/1557/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Kamal Saroj charged with abetting suicide. The court found no evidence of flight risk or witness tampering and granted bail subject to furnishing sureties and standard conditions of bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each, subject to standard conditions of bail.

Kamal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28482

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1557 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kamal Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarjoo Ram,Aklavya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 202 of 2023, under Sections 305, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, during trial.

¶8

It is submitted that as per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged that on 10.10.2023 at around 09.00 am, the daughter of the complainant was in the house while the complainant had gone to his field. By the time he came back, he found that the door of the house was closed and upon opening the same, he found his daughter hanging and that she had committed suicide. It is alleged that the applicant had given a mobile phone to the deceased and again on 09.10.2023, he had given another mobile phone to the deceased and despite the applicant was informed that he should stay away from the deceased, he did not pay any heed, rather threatened that he would elope with his daughter. It is further alleged that it is the applicant who abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is in the aforesaid context that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is urged that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Perusal of the post-mortem report which has been brought on record as Annexure-3, indicates that the cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Moreover, there is no conversation of the applicant with the deceased.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no material on record by which the applicant can be implicated in the instant case. Furthermore, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has

¶11

been in jail since 9.11.2023. Thus in these circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

It is also urged that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Kamal Saroj involved in the abovementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 8.4.2024 Shravan

¶24

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

Kamal Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Altaf Husain @ Altaf Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Balattar Singh and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Vikaram @ Khuddi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Prateek Kumar Mishra @ Prateek Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.