Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91159

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18411 of 2025

Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶6

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicant, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1098 of 2019, under Sections 364, 392, 411, 427, 34 IPC, Police Station Sector-49 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that after plain reading of the statement of the witnesses and other material on record, no offence is made out under Section 364 IPC. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.09.2019 i.e. more than six years. It is also submitted that the applicant is a poor person and there are none in the family to do pairvi in the said case. It is next submitted that other co-accused Manish and Aman have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2019 and 28.08.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 52230 of 2019 and 23906 of 2020 which is appended as annexure 7 of the paper book. It is submitted that the alleged recovery of mobile phone, laptop, mouse charger, cheque book and pass book have been shown by the police without following the procedure prescribed under law. There are no independent witness of the said recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting the bail. He has prayed for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State who has accepted notice in advance vehemently opposed the instant bail application but has not contradicted the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicant during the arguments.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶10

It is admitted fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.09.2019 i.e. more than six years. The investigation is still going on. The other co-accused Manish and Aman have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.11.2019 and 28.08.2020. It is also undertaken by the applicant that he shall abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Taking into consideration all entirety of the matter as discussed above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant- Suraj who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- 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.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶13

(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 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.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.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Pratima

¶16

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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