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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41338

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3463 of 2025

Applicant :- Siddharth Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd.Mateen,Devendra Kumar Singh,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi,Madhulika Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

In the prosecution case, the allegation levelled is of forgery pertaining to updation of Aadhar Cards in an illegal manner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The co-accused namely, Mahendra Mishra @ Mahendra Kumar Mishra and Girjesh Chaudhary, who have been assigned similar role, have been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 1.5.2025 and 29.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3658 of 2025 and 4800 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant seeks parity. It is submitted that there is no documentary evidence against the applicant. From the joint possession of three other accused persons, the recovery of incriminating articles has been made.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.2.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the bail orders of the co-accused Mahendra Mishra @ Mahendra Kumar Mishra and Girjesh Chaudhary so also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.2.2025; the offences are triable by a Magistrate; charge-sheet in the case has been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Siddharth Saroj involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 337, 339 & 341 BNS and 66(C) IT Act, 2008, P.S. Harraiya, District Balrampur, 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Shravan

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth 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

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

Ayush Tiwary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at Lko.

Alatamas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chandrapal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Naved vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Piyush Pratap Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.