Sahab Lal @ Daya Saroj vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9430 of 2025

¶3

Sahab Lal @ Daya Saroj

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Suneel Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 72

¶8

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶9

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

¶10

2. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

3. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 142 of 2025, under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 317(2), 317(4) B.N.S., Police Station Chauri, District Bhadohi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is submitted that first information report has been lodged against unknown persons and during investigation 05 co-accused persons are said to have been arrested and the name of the applicant has surfaced in their confession statement. It is submitted all the arrested co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history 0f 20 cases, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit as well as memo of application. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is

¶13

NABAIL No. 9430 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶16

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

¶17

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

7. The name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused persons from whose possession several bottles of liquor and beer of various brands have been recovered and as per FIR some unknown persons are said to have committed house trespass and entered into the shop of the first informant and committed theft of bottles of liquor and beer of various brands. The applicant is having criminal history 0f 20 cases, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit as well as memo of application.

¶19

8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶20

9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶21

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶22

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Sahab Lal @ Daya Saroj involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court

¶23

NABAIL No. 9430 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶26

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶27

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶28

(iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶30

12. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein.

¶31

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶32

November 17, 2025

¶33

Abhishek

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahab Lal @ Daya Saroj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahab Lal @ Daya Saroj v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Indu and Another vs State of U.P.

Faizan vs State of U.P.

Indraraj Singh Alias Indal Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Divyam vs State of U.P.

Suhaib Ui Islam vs State of U.P.

Yamin vs State of U.P.