Allowed¶12

Harinand @ Haripal Saroj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2025BAIL/12063/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed under Section 483 BNSS; offence under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Section 19(4) of the Act considered; clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act referenced; Section 313 Cr.P.C. condition imposed; Case Crime No. 57 of 2025, P.S. Madihan, District Mirzapur; applicant Harinand @ Haripal Saroj in jail since 18.03.2025; earlier bail in gang-chart case dated 15.01.2025; single judge (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; neutral citation 2025:AHC:81852; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Harinand @ Haripal released on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v) imposed by the court; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Harinand @ Haripal Saroj vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Harinand @ Haripal Saroj should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at P.S. Madihan, District Mirzapur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Court's answer

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record, and taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the court found it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Bail granted: applicant to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (no inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, personal presence at opening of case/framing of charge/recording of Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, presence on each date personally or through counsel); breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶13

Key takeaways

Clarified that anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determination of the bail application and will not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court is absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.; order dated 15.05.2025) allows a bail application under Section 483 BNSS moved by Harinand @ Haripal Saroj, in custody since 18.03.2025, in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Madihan, District Mirzapur. The gang-chart showed one case in which the applicant had already been enlarged on bail by the court below (order dated 15.01.2025); one further criminal-history case was explained in para 8 of the bail affidavit; the learned A.G.A. pointed out no other case against the applicant. Considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record and the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, bail was granted on a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, with conditions covering non-tampering/non-inducement, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and Section 313 Cr.P.C. recording, an undertaking against seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence on each date personally or through counsel; breach of any condition is a ground for cancellation. The order is expressly confined to the bail determination, leaving the trial court free to reach independent conclusions. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81852

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12063 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Harinand @ Haripal Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ratnesh Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ratnesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of applicant Harinand @ Haripal Saroj , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025, under Section 3 (1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Madihan, District Mirzapur, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In gang-chart annexed as Annexure No. 3, one criminal case has been shown against the applicant, in which applicant has been enlarged on bail by court below, vide order dated 15.01.2025.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and he has not abetted or assisted in the activities of a gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. Applicant has criminal history of one another case except the aforesaid case, which has been explained in para 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 18.03.2025 undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the

¶11

applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant, Harinand @ Haripal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

(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 the trial court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.5.2025/v.k.updh.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harinand @ Haripal Saroj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinand @ Haripal Saroj v. State of U.P.

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

Raj Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P.

Rajat Kumar Tripathi Alias Shani Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Umesh Paswan vs State of U.P.

Surendra vs State of U.P.

Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P.