Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

The present third bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No.733 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 803 of 2018, under Sections - 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station - Sector-49 Noida, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶10

The second bail of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2024, which is reproduced as below:-

¶11

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶12

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case crime No. 803 of 2018, under Sections - 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station - Sector-49 Noida, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.02.2020.

¶13

It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. Except the alleged evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence against the applicant. It was submitted that cause of death of deceased Nagendra has been shown due to ante-mortem injuries and thus it is quite probable that he might have suffered death while taking dip in the canal. As per prosecution version, both the deceased persons have gone for 'snan' at Muradnagar Ganga Canal. Cause of death of another deceased is drowning. Referring to the statement of concerned doctor, it was submitted that such injuries, as sustained by deceased Nagendra are possible while taking a dip in the canal. It is further submitted that there is no evidence that deceased has given Rs. 10 lakhs to the applicant. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is in languishing in jail since 23.08.2018, having no criminal history, and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased Nagendra Chauhan was taken away by

¶15

applicant-accused. Both the deceased persons were last seen with applicant-accused. The car of deceased was recovered at

¶16

BAIL No. 27206 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

instance of the applicant-accused. The car was having spots of human blood. It was stated that in the alleged incident, two persons have been murdered and referring to evidence it was submitted that there is evidence to show the involvement of the applicant in the incident. It was further submitted that most of the witnesses have already been examined before the trial court

¶19

and trial of the case is at advance stage. The first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits.

¶20

Considering submissions of learned counsel of the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-applicant.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed on behalf of applicant Saurabh is rejected.

¶22

However, keeping in view the period of detention of the applicant, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the applicant would be at liberty to move repeat bail application in accordance with law.

¶23

A copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance."

¶24

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no eyewitness of alleged incident and case is based on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances is not complete. Except the alleged evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence against the applicant. It was submitted that cause of death of deceased Nagendra has been shown due to ante-mortem injuries and thus it is quite probable that he might have suffered death while taking dip in the canal. As per prosecution version, both the deceased persons have gone for 'snan' at Muradnagar Ganga Canal. Cause of death of another deceased is drowning. Referring to the statement of concerned doctor, it was submitted that such injuries, as sustained by deceased Nagendra are possible while taking a dip in the canal. It is further submitted that there is no evidence that deceased has given Rs. 10 lakhs to the applicant.

¶25

It is further submitted that second bail of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2024 and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of nine months but trial has not been concluded so far. The applicant is in jail since 23.08.2018 and thus he has already undergone detention of more than seven years. It was shown that case is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and thus trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. The applicant has no criminal history. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that applicant may be granted bail.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that first and second bail of applicant have already been rejected.

¶27

BAIL No. 27206 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

Perusal of record shows that case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has already undergone detention of about more than seven years. Despite direction of this Court, the trial Court has failed to expedite the proceedings of the trial and case is still at the stage of prosecution evidence. The trial is being proceeded at snail's pace. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, particularly period of detention and stage of trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out.

¶30

The bail application is allowed .

¶31

Let the applicant - Saurabh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶32

i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶33

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness.

¶34

iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶35

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶36

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶37

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶38

October 9, 2025 'SP'/-

¶39

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh 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