Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29511

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13156 of 2024

Applicant :- Suraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheel Nidhi Shukla,Priya Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sheel Nidhi Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Satendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.338 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 309(6), 317(2) of B.N.S. Act registered at Police StationSarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 05.08.2024 stating that the informant's mother aged 73 years used to reside alone in her house and she was found dead. Her legs were tied with a Dupatta and her neck was tied with Angauchha .

¶9

The postmortem examination report mentions eight injuries including two lacerated wounds on right side of forehead, linear abrasion on chin, a contusion on left side of chin, an abraded contusion on left side of neck and below the left ear, an abraded contusion on right side of neck below the right ear, a contusion on back of neck. The cause of death has been opined to be Asphyxia due to antemortem throttling.

¶10

A gamchha and duppatta from which the neck and legs of the deceased were tied were recovered from the spot.

¶11

After investigation, a charge-sheet against the applicant and coaccused Archana Sharma was submitted on 01.10.2024.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application and material collected during investigation.

¶14

During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined several CCTV cameras installed near the places of the incident. The applicant and co-accused Archana Sharma were seen entering a park from its northern gate at about 11:30 and they were seen exiting the part from its western gate at about 12:38. The gamchha was present when the applicant was seen at 11:30 and it was not there when it was seen at 12:38.

¶15

After the police arrested the applicant, he confessed his involvement in commission of the offence and stated that he loves the co-accused Archana Sharma. He was deep in debts and his car had been hypothecated. The co-accused Archana Sharma is a neighbor of the deceased. She went to the house of the deceased and thereafter, she called the applicant. The applicant went there and strangulated her with a white gamchha . Archana assaulted on her head with a statue kept there. After death of the lady, co-accused Archana Sharma took away her bangle, rings, tops, earrings, a wrist watch, old mobile phone and a new mobile phone. Some stolen articles were recovered on the pointing out of the applicant from his house.

¶16

A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the applicant stating that the applicant was involved in another criminal case in which a closure report has been submitted on 27.02.2023.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant stated that the co-accused Archana Sharma has been granted bail by means of an order dated 31.01.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.13188 of 2024.

¶18

The allegations levelled against the applicant and co-accused Archana are similar in nature and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶19

A perusal of the order dated 31.01.2025 granting bail to the coaccused Archana indicates that she has been granted bail on the consideration that she is an unmarried girl/lady who has not been named in the FIR nor any allegation had been levelled against her and she has been implicated in the present case on the basis of extra judicial confession of the applicant; there is no eye-witness on account of last seen evidence; a charge-sheet has been filed and Archana Sharma has no previous criminal history. It appears that the observations recorded in the case diary after perusal of the CCTV cameras installed in the vicinity of the spot of incident have not been taken into consideration in the order dated 31.01.2025. The fact that several articles robbed from the house of the deceased have been recovered from the applicant also distinguishes his case from the case of the female co-accused who has been granted bail. Therefore, the case of the applicant is not at par with the case set-up against coaccused Archana Sharma who has been granted bail.

¶20

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that facts of the present case do not warrant exercise of discretion by enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶21

The bail application is accordingly, rejected .

¶22

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 19.5.2025/-Amit K-

¶24

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

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Deepu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Laxmi Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Salman @ Riyaj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Suraj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukesh Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another