Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024BAIL/4485/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Habbu @ Ankur Saroj challenging a conviction in a case under Section 307 IPC. The Court observed that prosecution witnesses denied the applicant's involvement during cross-examination and noted the trial's delay. Consequently, the Court allowed bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to undertakings not to tamper with evidence and to attend all future court dates.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69394

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4485 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0521 of 2018, under section 307 of IPC, P.S.- Kandhai, District - Pratapgarh.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He has also indicated the statements of P.W. -1 and P.W.- 2 while cross-examination and submitted that both the witnesses have denied the involvement of the present applicant and they have very particularly stated that they are very well acquainted with the present applicant as well as with another co-accused person, but they were not involved for opening fire over the injured. He added that P.W.-2 is injured thus, the whole story of prosecution is demolished and thus, trial will not lead to the punishment. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2018 and he has 22 cases criminal history which has been explained and also even after passing of about six years, the trial has not been concluded yet.

¶9

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgement rendered in the cases of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, 2021 3 SCC 712 decided on 1 February, 2021 and Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024 decided on 9 August, 2024 and submitted that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgments above-said. He submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that though the applicant is not named in the first information report, but after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and the injured has received serious injuries over his body which is evident from the injury report and there are 22 cases criminal history of the applicant as such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the statements of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 i.e. the informant and the injured, demolishes the story of prosecution as their cross-examination, they have denied the story of the prosecution and even they have specifically denied the involvement of the present applicant as they have stated that they are well acquainted with the present applicant as well as with the another co-accused persons, but they were not involved. This Court has also taken note of fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2018 and trial has still not been concluded yet; the applicant has 22 cases criminal history which has been explained in the bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit; the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Habbu @ Ankur Saroj involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or

¶16

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;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Mayank

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganga Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Basic Education) Shiksha Anubhag Lko. and 2 Others

Izhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Saket Girls Pg College Dahilamau Thru. Its Manager Smt. Kusumlata and Another Vs Commissioner for Employees Compensation/ Assit. Labour Commissioner, Pratapgarh and Another

Harish Chandra Ram Vs District Administrative Committee

Narendra Tewari Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Madhyamik Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Madhyamik Edu. Lko. and Ors.