Sanjay Bajpai Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6184

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 391 of 2024

Applicant :- Sanjay Bajpai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhineet Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and charge sheet in this case has already been filed.

¶7

Heard Shri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sanjay Bajpai for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 320/2023, under Sections 395, 412, 458 IPC, Police Station Dubagga, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant was not named in the FIR, however, after 3 days of the incident of alleged loot some co-accused persons are shown to have been arrested from the place, where they were allegedly fighting with each other pertaining to their share in loot and are shown to have been arrested by the police and from their possession some amount of cash as well as some jewellery which has been allegedly looted in the incident is shown to have been recovered.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that the applicant was not arrested by the police from the spot where the other co-accused persons are shown to be fighting with each other and complicity of the applicant is shown to have surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused persons who were arrested from there and the only allegation against the applicant is to the tune that other co-accused persons who has committed the incident had kept the jewellery and cash allegedly looted in the incident with the applicant.

¶11

It is further submitted that only Rs. 9,250 is shown to have been recovered from the house of the applicant along with some jewellery and the jewellery and the cash amount which is shown to have been recovered from the house of the applicant is actually owned by the applicant and his family members and is wrongly shown to be associated with the incident of loot.

¶12

It is also submitted that jewellery items have not been placed in any TIP for the purpose of identification and therefore the same may not be associated with the incident.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 12.10.2023. The co-accused persons who has allegedly committed the incident of loot, namely, Jamil, Divyanshu Bharti@ K.K., Rishikant Tiwari & Rishi Kant Tripathi, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, vide orders dated 22.12.2023, 19.12.2023 and 30.11.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Applications No. 15251 of 2023, 15009 of 2023 14117 of 2023, respectively. The criminal history of one case has been shown against the applicant, however, the applicant has yet to move a bail application therein. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the applicant was neither named in the FIR nor was arrested from the spot, from where the other co-accused persons are shown to have been arrested as they were allegedly fighting with each other with regard to their share in the looted articles. The role of the applicant is only confined to keeping the jewellery and some amount of cash looted in the incident. Admittedly there is no independent public witness of the arrest and alleged recovery made from the house of the applicant. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Jamil, Divyanshu Bharti@ K.K., Rishikant Tiwari & Rishi Kant Tripathi, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court. Criminal history of one case has been shown against the applicant wherein the applicant has still not moved any bail application. The applicant is in jail in this case since 12.10.2023. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,

¶17

complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Sanjay Bajpai involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not involve himself in any criminal activity while on bail in this case and if the infotainment of the applicant is found in any other criminal case the same shall be a sufficient ground to cancel the facility of bail extended by this Court.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

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

¶24

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.1.2024 Muk

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Bajpai v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bajpai v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kavita Chaudharya Alias Kavita Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Rajnath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Mithlesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ayush Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow

Jang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shrikant Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.