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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15007

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3818 of 2024

Appellant :- Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Rajpur Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Umang Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the private respondent, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.7.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 2011/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 74/2023 under Sections 147, 323, 364, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Asiwan, District- Unnao.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 11.5.2023. He further submits that criminal history of appellant has been explained in para 23 of the rejoinder affidavit. He next submits that the trial of case in question is not going on and still today only four witnesses have been examined out of 25 witnesses and they have not supported the prosecution version. He also submits that other co-accused namely Saurabh and Jaduresh Singh @ Jagga have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.3.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 441 of 2025 and 3648 of 2024 respectively. He next submits that in the present case, there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer of appellant but they do not dispute this fact that all the four witnesses of fact, who have already been examined before the Trial Court, have not supported the prosecution version.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of impugned order as well as FIR and other relevant material, all the four witnesses of fact, who have already been examined before the Trial Court, have not supported the prosecution version and the other co-accused have already been granted bail as aforesaid, this Court is of the view that learned trial court is failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the

¶11

aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 29.7.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 2011/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 74/2023 under Sections 147, 323, 364, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Asiwan, DistrictUnnao is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Saroj 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 appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) In case, the appellant 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 AKK

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Smt. Arti Thru. Her Husband Sri Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Smt. Sita Yadav Vs Addl. Principal JUDGE-4, Family Court, Distt. Lucknow and Another

Master Rishab Krishna Thru. His Natural Guardian (Father) Krishnapal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Lavlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sandeep Rajkumar Vs Shalini Rajkumar

Najim Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another