Sachin vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7370

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1326 of 2025

Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.709 of 2024, under Sections 317(5), 317(2), 318(4) of B.N.S., Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, four motorcycles and one scooty are stated to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by the police on 08.10.2024.

¶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. S everal other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶11

There is no criminal history of the applicant except two cases foisted on the applicant at a go. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that

¶14

pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶15

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶16

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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Sachin , 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.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Sumit S

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanuj Dhaka vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kanijan vs State of U.P.

Harshvardhan Alias Vivek Kumar vs State of U.P.

Preetam Singh vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Anil Kanjad and Another vs State of U.P.