Suresh Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

On a query being put, Sri S.P. Tiwari, the learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the case on merits, as such the Court proceeded to hear the instant application seeking bail on merits.

¶10

Heard Ms. Anamika Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Tiwari, the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶11

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 166/2025, under Sections- 64(1), 123, 351(3), 333 B.N.S., Police Station- Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh.

¶12

While pressing the present application, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant having criminal history of one case, which has been explained in paragraph 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and the same has not been refuted by the learned AGA, is in jail since 21.11.2025, though he has not committed the crime as alleged in the FIR No. 0166 dated 19.11.2025 lodged at Police Station- Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh, in connection to which the applicant is in incarceration.

¶13

It is further stated that in fact the allegations levelled in the FIR are false and concocted and have been levelled in counterblast to the civil dispute related to construction of drain between the side of the applicant and that of the prosecutrix/victim and this fact can be inferred from the a conjoint reading of the copy of complaint(s) dated 28.06.2025 and 05.09.2025, on record, and also the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector namely Vinod Kumar Singh, Police Station- Mandhata, DistrictPragraph, annexed at page 38 of the paper book, which finds the name of the applicant and also the name of the husband of the prosecutrix/victim.

¶14

BAIL No. 1177 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

It is further stated that the allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR by the prosecutrix/victim are false and concocted rather bogus can be inferred from the fact that upon due medical examination the doctor concerned could not opine that it is a case of sexual violence and also from the fact that upon due investigation the charge sheet has not been filed under the offence indicated under the IT Act, 2005, though it ought to have been. It is in the view of the allegations levelled in the FIR to the effect that the applicant made obscene video clip of the prosecutrix/victim.

¶17

It is further submitted that in these circumstances, the present application is liable to be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, however he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the applicant.

¶19

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R. as also that he is in jail since 21.11.2025 as also the chances of conviction of the applicant in the instant case as well as the medical opinioin, this Court finds that the present applicant is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Suresh Saroj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member/close relative) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶21

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶25

(v) 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.

¶26

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶27

BAIL No. 1177 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶30

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶31

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶32

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶33

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶34

February 18, 2026

¶35

Arun/-

¶36

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

Suresh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Kant Srivastava vs Shri Haratheesh H.A. Posted as Addl. General Manager/ Unit Head Iti Ltd. Raibareli and Another

Shakir Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Dist. Lko. and 8 Others

Jwala Prasad vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Mukesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bal Krishna vs Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Engineer-in-Chief Development and Head of Deptt. Lko.

Rohit Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another