Allowed

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024BAIL/1823/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Sections 395/412/109 IPC based on parity with a bailed co-accused. The court noted prolonged custody since January 2019, non-commencement of trial, explained criminal history, and granted bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions imposed in the interest of justice.

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38522

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1823 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Habbu @ Ankur Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that name of the present applicant and co-accused Saddam has been taken by the co-accused Sooraj Singh. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no recovery from the present applicant. It has been further submitted that several co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as by the coordinate Benches of this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Saddam whose case is on identical footing has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2021 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 792 of 2020. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the coaccused.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2019 and till date even charges have not been framed. The applicant has explained his criminal history of 16 cases. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the

¶10

liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact it is a case of parity.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that co-accused Saddam has been enlarged on bail; trial has not commenced till date; the applicant has explained his criminal history, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2019 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Habbu @ Ankur Saroj, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 427/2018 under Sections 395/412/109 IPC, Police Station - Lambhua, District - Sultanpur, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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

¶20

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.5.2024 R.C.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. 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

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

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

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vipin Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Snehlata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.