Allowed

Manjeet Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2024/2867/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail. The court observed that key prosecution witnesses including parents and brothers of the deceased were declared hostile. Bail granted on personal bond with sureties conditioned to appear diligently during trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties undertaking strict attendance and no adjournment.

Manjeet Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43463

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2867 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manjeet Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarjoo Ram,Aklavya,Dinesh Kumar,Mamta Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0029 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that PW1, mother of the deceased has been examined by the trial court and she has been declared hostile. In cross examination, PW1 mother of the deceased has stated that the matter was settled between the parties, marriage was performed on 12.02.2023 as per hindu rites and rituals. She has further stated in her cross examination that her daughter's vidai had not taken place with the applicant, the other family members did not demand dowry and there was no harassment by the family members of the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that after detailed cross examination, the court has declared the mother of the deceased as hostile.

¶9

Similarly, father, PW2 of deceased has also been declared hostile and he has also not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel has invited attention of this court towards the statements of two brothers of deceased Rahul and Sanjay Kumar, who are P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively, who have also been declared hostile. Learned counsel submitted that after looking to the statements of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4; parents and brothers of deceased, at this moment, it cannot be presumed that the applicant is involved in the commission of crime. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 16.03.2023.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the parents and the two brothers of the deceased have become hostile.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and

¶12

looking to the argument that the parents as well as two brothers of the deceased have been declared hostile by the court below, as such the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Manjeet Saroj, be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶18

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.6.2024 Pks

¶20

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

Manjeet Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Shashi Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amrit Lal @ Amat Lal vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Manjeet Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aniket Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow