Allowed

Brijesh Kumar Saroj @ Chakle v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2024BAIL/1188/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case. The court noted the applicant's role was assisting in apprehending others, similar to a co-accused already on bail, and found no history of absconding or risk to the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail upon executing a bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Brijesh Kumar Saroj @ Chakle vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10692

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1188 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Saroj @ Chakle Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui,Dildar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and perused the record. The Vakalatnama is taken on record. The supplementary affidavit is also taken on record.

¶7

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in ST No.1172 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.11 of 2022, under Sections 302, 307/34 IPC, Police Station Delhupur, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 11.08.2022 at about 10:00 PM, the father of the informant was sleeping at a firm and two persons named in the FIR and some unknown persons came to that place and on account of old enmity caused injuries by the use of brick on the head of the father of the informant, which resulted in his death. It was also stated that the uncle of the informant was also heard by the said persons.

¶9

4 . In view of the FIR, the submission of the Counsel for the applicant is that he was not named in the FIR, his name surfaced in the confessional statement of one of the co-accused, which is contained as Annexure-8. In the confessional statement of the co-accused Jagdish Prasad, he admitted that he along with three other persons including the applicant, Sanjay Saroj and one Rahul Singh caught hold of the legs and hands and he has caused the injury in question which ultimately resulted into the death.

¶10

5 . The Counsel for the applicant also draws my attention to the statement of the injured victim who specifically stated that the injuries to him were caused by Jagdish Bahadur and other persons present did not cause any injury to him. In the light of the said, it is submitted that apart from the confessional

¶11

statement of the co-accused, where the name of the applicant surfaced, there is no evidence to link, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 19.06.2023 and two of the prosecution witnesses have already been enlarged on bail and thus he should be enlarged on bail.

¶12

6 . It is further argued by the Counsel for the applicant that one of the co-accused Rahul Singh who was also assigned the role of catching hold the hands in the statement of the co-accused, is enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2689 of 2023.

¶13

7. Learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail prayer by arguing that it is the four persons who had caused the offence in question as is clear from the confessional statement, where the applicant has also been named. It is further argued that the bail application of the coaccused Sanjay Saroj was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.285 of 2023 and, thus, the bail application of the applicant should be rejected.

¶14

8. Considering the averments made at the bar; as per the confessional statement, the role assigned to the applicant was of catching hold, which was similar to the role assigned to the coaccused Rahul Singh and apart from the said confessional statement, the name of the applicant was not taken by the other victim, who was also attacked and considering the fact that Rahul Singh has been enlarged on bail on similar allegations coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is custody since 19.06.2023 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

9. Let the applicant Brijesh Kumar Saroj @ Chakle be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.2.2024 akverma

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijesh Kumar Saroj @ Chakle v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Saroj @ Chakle v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Jabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bramha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sewak Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Atul Rai Alias Atul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vikas Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.