Allowed

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024/2401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case after the court observed that the applicant was implicated only during a secondary statement. The informant admitted knowing the applicant. Noting that no witnesses had been examined despite the chargesheet being filed, the court held it was a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and undertaking to appear on dates for framing of charge and recording of Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement.

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj Vs the State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50992

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2401 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Habbu @ Ankur Saroj Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Rai,Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 515 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 286 I.P.C., Police Station- Kandhai, District- Pratapgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case but he was not named in the F.I.R. He further submits that statement of the informant was recorded in the first parcha after lodging of the F.I.R., in which, name of the applicant was not mentioned. He next submits that after two months, 'majeed' statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, name of the applicant was surfaced by saying that the applicant was handed over by the informant and the main role of firing was also assigned to the applicant. He also submits that the applicant does not have have any criminal antecedent, who is in jail since 25.09.2019 and charge was framed on 20.03.2023, but till today not even a single witness has been examined. He lastly submits that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, hence, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶9

In pursuance of earlier order dated 01.03.2024, written instructions dated 06.03.2024 duly signed by Sub Inspector, Police Station- Kandhai, District- Pratapgarh are placed before this Court by learned A.G.A., which reveals that names of 18 witnesses are mentioned in the charge-sheet but till the date of sending instructions, not even a single witness has been examined.

¶10

The aforesaid instructions placed by learned A.G.A. are taken on record.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. He submits that after detailed investigation, chargesheet was submitted and during the course of investigation, role of firing was assigned to the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that involvement of the applicant was found after two months from the date of the incident in the 'majeed' statement of the informant.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the bail application, F.I.R., statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., police report dated 06.03.2024 as well as other relevant documents; it is admitted by the informant that he was well known to the applicant but neither in the F.I.R. nor in his statement, the name of the applicant was mentioned, but after two months, 'majeed' statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, involvement of the applicant was surfaced. As till today not even a single witness has been examined, this is a fit case for bail and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

The bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Habbu @ Ankur Saroj who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶19

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶21

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

¶22

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶23

Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh and Joint Director, Prosecution, Pratapgarh are directed to ensure the presence of witnesses and accused persons before the trial court for completion of trial.

¶24

Office is directed to communicate this order to Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh and Joint Director, Prosecution, Pratapgarh, forthwith.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.7.2024

¶26

Arpan

¶27

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

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

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

Vishwamitra Mishra Vs Chiranjeev Nath Sinha, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Distt. Barabanki

Horilal Vs Anuj Singh, D.M. / Collector, Sitapur

Sandeep Sinha and Another Vs Sri Surya Pal Gangwar, D.M., Lko.

Raghunandanshitaldan Singh Memorial Trust, Thru. Its Manager Sri Santosh Singh, Azamgarh Vs Dr. B.N. Singh, Chairman, U.P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Homeopathy Bhawan Lko. and Another

Adarsh Pratap Singh Vs Vineet Jaiswal, Superintendent of Police, Dist. Gonda and Another

Rama Shankar Nisad Vs Dr. Rangaraju T. , Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Pallia Kalan Lakhimpur Kheri