Sarukh Paasa vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12849

Court No. - 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2511 of 2025

Applicant :- Sarukh Paasa Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad,Prakhar Saran Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Isshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sarukh Paasa, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 18 of 2024, under Section 7/12/13(1)(b) Anticorruption Act, 1988, 13(2) and 61(2) B.N.S. Act, registered at P.S. Brasthacharya Nivaran Sangthan, District Moradabad.

¶9

The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the applicant was apprehended accepting Rs.20,000/- as bribe which was informed by him to be taken on behalf of co-accused Rahul Singh.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Rahul Singh although is also named in the F.I.R. as an accused but his arrest has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.18597 of 2024 (Rahul Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 15 to the affidavit in support of this bail application. It is submitted that the said writ petition is still before this Court for final disposal. It is submitted that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-35 of the affidavit and is in jail since 06.10.2024.

¶11

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but

¶12

could not dispute the argument with regards to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of co-accused Rahul Singh.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that arrest of named co-accused Rahul Singh has been stayed by Division Bench of this Court in a writ petition which is still pending before this Court for final disposal. The applicant is having no other criminal history.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Sarukh Paasa, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (out of which one surety should be the family member of the applicant and the other should be a local person ) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails 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.

¶20

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial

¶21

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. 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Naresh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarukh Paasa v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarukh Paasa 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prince Vishwakarma vs State of U.P.

Enam Alias Guddu Alias Enamullah Ahamed and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Rajkumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Pandey vs State of U.P.