The Allahabad High Court allowed a second bail application in a manner that may be used to help the applicant escape from prosecution.
Applicant released on bail personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, seek adjournments, or be absent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69776
Court No. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2491 of 2024
Applicant :- Ankur Saroj @ Habbu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.696 of 2020 was dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 12.04.2022.
The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.143 of 2018, under Sections 307 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh.
As per the prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused Abhishek, Sunil and Vipin are said to have gone in a marriage ceremony on 17.6.2018 at about 09:30 PM. At the said marriage ceremony, the applicant along with co-accused Sunil and Vipin are said to have exhorted in an inebriated state to shoot at Shiv Pratap son of the first Informant and consequently the applicant is said to have fired at Shiv Pratap causing gun shot injury to him.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 12.12.2018 however, till date trial has not concluded. Three prosecution witnesses/eye witnesses have been examined i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.3 who have not supported the prosecution story in their cross-examination rather they have denied it. The applicant has explained the criminal history of 19 cases in
paragraph 11 of the second bail application.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer however, could not dispute the fact that these three prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in their cross-examination.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2018, statement of P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.3 and the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2024 SCC OnLine SC 16693] , without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant Ankur Saroj @ Habbu be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:
(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 :- 16.10.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit person to be released on bail considering the testimony of prosecution witnesses has not been substantiated.
Whether the delay in trial and lack of corroboration from prosecution witnesses warrants granting bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶14
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 16693] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ankur Saroj @ Habbu
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
