Allowed

Sarju Joshi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2025ABAIL/115/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sarju Joshi in cases involving abducting and kidnapping/abducting women. The applicant was a co-accused in the trial and alleged false implication against the victim, his wife, orchestrating the case. The Court granted bail on personal bond with sureties and specific conditions regarding passport, presence in court, and interference

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond with two sureties and complying with specific conditions regarding passport, presence, and interference with witnesses.

Sarju Joshi vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4266

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 115 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sarju Joshi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Sahu,Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case No.33333 of 2023 and Case Crime No.05 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Budaun, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged with malicious intention. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant. The applicant and victim have solemnized marriage and have nine months old baby and are living peacefully. The applicant co-operated in the trial proceedings. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case

¶12

either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Sarju Joshi who is involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

i. The applicant shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

ii. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶16

iii. That 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;

¶17

iv. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

v. In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶19

vi. 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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Meenu Singh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarju Joshi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarju Joshi v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Armaan vs State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home)

Smt. Mahendrawati vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem vs State of U.P.

Deepak vs State of U.P. and Another

Rafeeq and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nand Kishor and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another