Chandan @ Gorakh Saroj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63674

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12516 of 2025

Applicant :- Chandan @ Gorakh Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Kumar,Suneel Thekma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 11.04.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Sri Suneel Thekma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 397 of 2024, under Sections 108, 64, 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bilariyaganj, District - Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim and had subsequently administered her sulphos tablet forcibly thereby leading her to death on 08.07.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The inquest proceedings of the victim was recorded on 09.07.2024 and the family members of the victim were present at that time but the FIR was not instituted by them. The FIR is delayed by about four months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶11

Learned counsel has also stated that initially, the FIR was instituted for murder u/s 103 BNS but subsequently, the case has been transformed to abetment of suicide u/s 108 of BNS. The ingredients of Section 108 BNS do not stand fulfilled, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no overt act assigned

¶12

to the applicant of having abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no suicide note either. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Chandan @ Gorakh Saroj , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date:- 25.4.2025 Siddhant

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandan @ Gorakh Saroj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan @ Gorakh Saroj v. State of U.P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gurucharan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nakul Yadav Alias Abhay Jeet vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohna Alias Sohanlal Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babloo Alias Vivek Kumar vs State of U.P.

Avanish Maurya vs State of U.P.

Gulshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others