Savej vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43481 of 2025

Savej

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rajiv Sisodia, Shashank Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yagvalkya Pandey, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking enlargement on bail of the applicant in Case Crime No. 81 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 351(2), 352 of the B.N.S., Police Station Mandawali, District Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor, vide order dated 30.09.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.07.2025.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR was lodged by the first informant nominating three persons including the applicant with the allegation that the nominated persons were carving out a residential colony over Khasra No. 13 and 19 situated in Mota Mahadevpuram, 1st Colony, Jatpura Road, Bijnor. The informant was interested in a 100 sq. yards plot. The informant was shown the map of Plot No. 21 @ Rs. 5000/- per yard. The informant transferred Rs. 2,00,000/- online and Rs. 1,20,000/- monthly and lastly deposited Rs.1,80,000/- online besides Rs. 30,000/- towards expenses for Registry. A total sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- was transferred into different Bank Account as indicated by the applicant. The sale deed of the plot agreed to be sold to the informant was not executed nor the money of the informant has been

¶10

BAIL No. 43481 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

returned. The FIR also alleges that the nominated person have duped 15 other persons likewise. It has been argued that all the money has been transferred in the bank account of the co-accused Aasim Jalal whose bank statement reflects transactions of more than Rs. 1,26,61,011/- The land used for carving out colony is in the names of Mohd. Alim and Abhishek Gupta who are partners in property dealing business. The applicant is merely a salaried employee of the co-accused Mohd. Aasim and Abhishek and had been working under the instructions of the co-accused Mohd. Aasim and Abhishek. It is argued that the said fact is also apparent from the SIT Report conducted under the aegis of ASP City, Bijnor, brought on record as Annexure No. 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is next argued that the criminal antecedents have been duly explained in Para 15 of the bail application. The applicant is not a flight risk and undertakes to cooperate in trial. He shall not misuse the liberty of bail. the co-accused Mohd. Aasim Jalal has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32072 of 2025. Hence, the bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Learned counsel for the AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and primafacie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the accused-applicant, Savej, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶18

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶19

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and

¶20

BAIL No. 43481 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

co-operate in the trial.

¶23

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶24

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶25

March 30, 2026

¶26

pks

¶27

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Savej v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savej 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Government of U.P. at Lucknow and 3 Others

Saleem vs State of U.P.

Mohd Ekhlaq Malik vs State of U.P.

Smt Gayatri Devi vs State of U.P.

Khurshid vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Mandiya Vs State of U.P.