Anuj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21971

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3099 of 2025

Applicant :- Anuj Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.146 of 2024, under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 05.07.2024 during night when unidentified persons are said to have stolen valuables from the house of informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons and alleged recovery has been shown from applicant on 14.11.2024 only on the basis of alleged tip off provided by police informer. It is submitted that alleged recovery even otherwise is unconnected with the items reportedly stolen. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained and other cases lodged against applicant in fact relate only to the alleged recovery.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that recovery memo clearly indicates applicant being involved in the allegations levelled in the FIR with recovery also being effected from applicant.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons with incident reportedly taking place on 05.07.2024 and alleged recovery having been made very much subsequently on 14.11.2024 at the instance of police informer. The aspect of recovery tallying with the valuables reportedly stolen would be subject matter of trial with submission of evidence. Applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and he is under incarceration since 15.11.2024.

¶15

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Anuj Saroj involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) 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. 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/her in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anuj Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Widow Usha Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sheru @ Arman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiva Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Saddam @ Mohd. Saddam Qureshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Leele Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.