Allowed

Bhim Saroj v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 May 2024BAIL/5140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court released the applicant on bail during the trial for an alleged attempt to murder. The court held it to be a fit case for bail, emphasizing the absence of cogent evidence and the larger mandate of Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to not tamper with evidence and to appear for trial proceedings.

Bhim Saroj vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71994

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5140 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bhim Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Chandra,Puttu Lal Misra,Vivek Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/Case Crime No. 0204 of 2023, under Sections 452, 307 IPC, Police Station Delhupur, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the incident is of 10 p.m. in the winter's night and no source of light is mentioned either in the First Information Report or in the statement given by the complainant. He submits that the incident was not seen by the complainant and the applicant has been seen while fleeing away from the place of alleged incident. He added that on the basis of suspicion, the name of the present applicant has been placed. He was not involved in the incident and there is no cogent piece of evidence against him. He added that since the injured was sleeping, therefore, the statement given by the injured is irrelevant. He next added that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 28.12.2023 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there is specific allegation against him and the injured has received injures on the vital part of the body, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the incident is of 10 p.m. of winter's night; no source of light is mentioned in

¶12

the FIR or the statement of the complainant; further no one has seen the incident, particularly, the attack over the injured but it has been alleged that applicant-accused was seen fleeing away from the place of incident and he is languishing in jail since 28.12.2023 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicant -Bhim 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 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

¶20

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 kkv/

¶23

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

Bhim Saroj v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Dileep Kumar Pathak Vs Rishi Vashishtha Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. Thru Secy. and Ors.

Rajeev Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Sugar Industries and Cane Deptt. and 4 Others

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education and Research and 5 Others

National Mahila Mahavidyalaya Thru Its Manager and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.and Ors.

Mukhtar Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Secondary Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.andORS.

Neeraj Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others