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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22916

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3411 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 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

¶7

1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0209 of 2024 under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) B.N.S., P.S. Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, which has been lodged against unidentified person, the incident is said to have taken place on 02.09.2024 when unidentified persons broke into house of informant and stole away valuables.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of his previous criminal history. It is submitted that there is no explanation of delay of two days in lodging F.I.R. and even otherwise recovery from applicant is said to have taken place on 14.11.2024, almost two months after the incident at the instance of a tip off provided by a police informer when applicant's motorcycle is said to have been intercepted by a police team. It is submitted that alleged recovery of valuables has also not been identified and there is no connection with the incident in question. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 15.11.2024 with his previous criminal history being explained.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that recovery was clearly effected by a police team with valuables also being recovered from applicant. It is however admitted that the said recovery has taken place after more than two months from the incident. It is also admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained

¶12

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 :-

¶13

"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

¶14

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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that there is no cogent reason indicated for delay of two days in filing F.I.R. Recovery also appears to have taken place during routine checking while intercepting motorcycle of applicant after more than two months of the incident. The valuables allegedly recovered from applicant have not yet been identified by informant. Previous criminal history has been explained. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant Anuj Saroj, involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 269 of BNS.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 of BNS.

¶22

(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 351 BNSS. 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 kvg/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV 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

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

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Yusuf @ Yousuf Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others