Saurabh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.496 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 96, 66 of BNS and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. P.G.I., District Lucknow.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, the complainant has stated that he is a resident of Village- Saraiya, District Unnao. The accused Saurabh Singh is a resident of Eldeco Colony, PGI, Lucknow, who is posted as Principal in Prathmik Vidyalaya at Village Saraiya, District- Unnao. It has been alleged that the applicant allured the sister of the complainant for the purpose of employment and took her to Lucknow on 08.07.2024. The complainant has stated that his father had expired about Five years back and his mother is mentally retarded. Taking advantage of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant took his sister to Lucknow where he committed atrocities with her for about a week and as such on 15.07.2024, the applicant, along with his four other companions gang raped his sister in an intoxicated state. Since the condition of the sister got precarious, hence the accused Saurabh Singh informed the complainant on his mobile, on which the family members of the complainant reached Lucknow on 16.07.2024 where it was found that the sister was admitted at Lok Bandhu Hospital. They reached the hospital where they found the victim dead and the body was found in a mutilated condition wherein blood stain was found around mouth and hence, the

¶12

BAIL No. 11001 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

complainant has prayed to lodge the FIR.

¶15

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that story of the prosecution in the F.I.R. that victim was gang raped has been found false by the Investigating Officer as the charge-sheet in the case has been filed only against the applicant and name of four co-acused persons have been dropped. It is submitted that complainant is not the eye witness. It is also not clear from the prosecution case that as to how on what basis alleged date of incident has to be stated to have taken place on 15.07.2025, there is no explanation to this effect in the prosecution story. The allegation of gang rape has also been falsified from the ante mortm injuries sustained by the deceased in the post mortem report where two contusions 8 cm x 6 cm present on the left side of head just above left ear and 6 cm x 3 cm present on back of head at occiput. Apart from that there is no other ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased. Cause of death is coma due to ante mortem head injury, specific finding has been recorded in the post mortem report that no injury has been seen around and inside the vagina hence for this reason also the prosecution story in the F.I.R. is also falsified. Three doctors have given the statement Dr. Umesh Sachan, Dr. Kanika Chitranshi have opined that there are no sign of struggle or injury around the genital of the deceased however, third Dr. Kuldeep Kumar Verma has conducted the post mortem and has opined that death is due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. No other injury has been stated by him to corroborate the DNA examination of the vaginal as well as the other swabs of the deceased to have matched with that of the applicant and in the FSL report, no opinion on the DNA profile could be given. Due to no opinion has been given, scientific evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution case. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is lastly submitted that in this case, complainant is not the eye witness and except the complainant there is no other fact witness, rest all the witness are formal witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 18.07.2024.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the bail application and submits that it is a gruesome murder and it was the applicant who took the victim with him to Lucknow. There is last seen evidence of the mother of the victim.

¶17

Rebutting the same, learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation of last seen is of 08.07.2024 whereas the incident has taken place on 15.07.2024 unexplained gap of seven days, therefore, last seen evidence has no relevance.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record

¶19

BAIL No. 11001 of 2024

¶20

3

¶21

as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2024 having no criminal history, there is only one fact witness in this case i.e. informant who is not the eye witness, the prosecution story in the F.I.R. prima facie has not been corroborated by the post motem report or the FSL report and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant Saurabh Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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 proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶29

(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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶30

September 24, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

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

Saurabh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Haribansh Singh Alias Bhoore Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Brij Lal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Animal Husbandry andORS.

Bitto Devi Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt of Basic Education Lko. and Another

Sudhakar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Brijesh Kumar Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rishiraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others