Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 240 of 2024, under Sections 109,115(2),351(2),351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Fatanpur, District Pratapgarh.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the co-accused Jang Bahadur Saroj has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.390 of 2025. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of only one case which has duly been explained in para 19 of the bail application and he is in jail since 25.02.2025. Charge-sheet in the case has been filed. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. He undertakes that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

BAIL No. 3517 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 25.2.2025; criminal history of the applicant has duly been explained; charge-sheet in the case has been filed and without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Saroj involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶25

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶26

March 9, 2026 Shravan

¶27

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

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sukhraj vs Union of India Thru. N.C.B. Zonal Unit Lko.

Rahul Kori vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Nidhi Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homw Lko.

Ram Sajeevan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Vijay Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manju Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.