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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14794

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9342 of 2024

Applicant :- Sohrab Sai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Kant,Shashank Pandey,Shrayansh Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 155 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 354 IPC & Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Dahi, District - Unnao.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and even the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC are not corroborative. He submits that due to enmity, the FIR has been lodged in the present case. He next stated that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 27.06.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.06.2024; the applicant is not named in the FIR and even the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC are not corroborative; the applicant has no previous criminal history; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as

¶11

to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the accused/ applicant- Sohrab Sai involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 (Manoj K.)

¶21

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

Sohrab Sai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohrab Sai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Farmaan Vs Union of India Thru. Director of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Office Lko.

Pawan Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohd. Miya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Sanjay Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohammad Shahjan @ Pandiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Raheesh Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko