Mohammad Sartaj Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24723 of 2025

Mohammad Sartaj

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Krishna Dubey	Kant Dubey,	Santosh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Mohammad Sartaj with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.46 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Co-accused Rohit Kumar and Vikas Kashyap are named in the F.I.R. He further submitted that specific contents of chatting has not been mentioned in the first information report. Applicant's name came into light during the course of investigation after two months of the registration of the first information report on the basis of statement of Deepak Thakur and Junaid. The accused/applicant is not the beneficiary. He has not committed any offence as mentioned in the first information report. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. was directed to seek instructions in the matter. As per instructions, he stated tht the accused applicant has no criminal history. He specifically stated that accused persons, who are named in the first information report, have been assigned specific role and involvement.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant;

¶11

BAIL No. 24723 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶14

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) 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 Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶18

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶19

(v) 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 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.

¶20