Saurabh Alias Anurag vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36669 of 2025

Saurabh Alias Anurag

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Jalaj Kumar Yadav	Kushwaha,	Ray Sahab
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 64

¶5

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶6

Ms. Shabana Nizam, Advocate, has filed her Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant and learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit. The same are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and Ms. Shabana Nizam, learned counsel for the informant.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2025, under Sections 105, 115(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Sindhauli, District Shahjahanpur during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 12.07.2025 at 15:30 hours. The first information report was lodged on 13.07.2025 at 23:13 hours. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the brother of the informant. The brother of the informant succumbed to the injuries on 14.07.2025. According to the statement of the informant under Section 180 BNSS, he was not an eye witness of the alleged incident. As per the statement of the eye witness Hori Lal, there was a scuffle between Waseem (now deceased) and the applicant. The applicant gave Waseem (now deceased) a strong push causing him to fall at the interlocking compound wall. Consequently, the deceased sustained head

¶10

BAIL No. 36669 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

injuries. It is contended that there was no intent to cause murder. The applicant is in jail since 15.07.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the statement of the informant under Section 180 BNSS, he was not an eye witness of the alleged incident. According to the statement of the eye witness Hori Lal, there was a scuffle between Waseem (now deceased) and the applicant. The applicant gave Waseem (now deceased) a strong push causing him to fall at the interlocking compound wall. Consequently, the deceased sustained head injuries. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the chargesheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Saurabh alias Anurag, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶16