Habbu @ Ankur Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Habbu @ Ankur Saroj to be released on bail in Case Crime/FIR No. 427/2018 (Sections 395/412/109 IPC, P.S. Lambhua, District Sultanpur) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, intimidating prosecution witnesses, inducement/threat/promise, seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, and absence from trial court dates (with consequences under Section 229-A IPC, Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Section 174-A IPC).

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Habbu @ Ankur Saroj, in custody since 17.01.2019 in Case Crime/FIR No. 427/2018 under Sections 395/412/109 IPC, should be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Saddam (already granted bail), given that the trial had not commenced and his criminal history of 16 cases stood explained. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering that co-accused Saddam had been enlarged on bail, the trial had not commenced, the applicant had explained his criminal history, and he had been languishing in jail since 17.01.2019, the Court found it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed and the applicant was to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Key takeaways

Release on bail was made subject to conditions, including that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses, shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present, and shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, failing which the trial court may proceed under Section 229-A IPC, and in case of misuse of bail and absence after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., under Section 174-A IPC.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.) allowed the bail application of Habbu @ Ankur Saroj, arraigned in Case Crime/FIR No. 427/2018 under Sections 395/412/109 IPC, Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur, and ordered his enlargement on bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Saddam, who had been released on bail by the same Court vide order dated 21.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 792 of 2020. The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 17.01.2019, that charges had not been framed and the trial had not commenced, and that he had explained his criminal history of 16 cases; the learned AGA opposed the application but could not dispute that it was a case of parity. Expressing no opinion on the merits, the Court directed release on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions barring tampering with evidence and intimidation or inducement of witnesses, requiring an undertaking against seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, and providing for proceedings under Section 229-A IPC and, upon proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., under Section 174-A IPC in case of misuse of bail or absence.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38522

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1823 of 2024

Applicant :- Habbu @ Ankur Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that name of the present applicant and co-accused Saddam has been taken by the co-accused Sooraj Singh. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no recovery from the present applicant. It has been further submitted that several co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as by the coordinate Benches of this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Saddam whose case is on identical footing has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2021 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 792 of 2020. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the coaccused.

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2019 and till date even charges have not been framed. The applicant has explained his criminal history of 16 cases. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the

liberty of bail.

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact it is a case of parity.

On due consideration to the fact that co-accused Saddam has been enlarged on bail; trial has not commenced till date; the applicant has explained his criminal history, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2019 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Habbu @ Ankur Saroj, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 427/2018 under Sections 395/412/109 IPC, Police Station - Lambhua, District - Sultanpur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

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

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(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.

(iv) 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.

(v) 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.

(vi) 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.

Order Date :- 21.5.2024 R.C.

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench