High Court · 2025
Case Details
with co-accused persons named in the First Information Report and 4–5 unknown persons in a marriage procession with a common intention and with intent to kill hurled abuses and assaulted the sons of Rohit Saroj and Neeraj Saroj with lathi and danda. As a result both have suffering grievous injuries. It is further alleged that Rohit Saroj succumbed to the injuries on the way, while Neeraj Saroj was admitted to the District Hospital for treatment. It is submitted that as per the statement of the injured eyewitness the allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the deceased with a stick/danda on the head. It is further submitted that the allegation of assault on the head of the deceased has been attributed to two accused persons, the applicant and one Monu. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident in question occurred in two phases. The injured witness, Neeraj, as per his own statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is not an eyewitness to the second phase of the incident. He has only witnessed the first phase. However, according to the prosecution version, the deceased sustained fatal injuries during the second phase of the occurrence. It is further submitted that the other two alleged eyewitnesses, Krishna and Shubham, are in fact not eyewitnesses to the actual incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the postmortem report and submitted that the deceased sustained two injuries. The first is a contused swelling measuring 10 cm × 10 cm on the right side of the parieto-temporal region of the head, accompanied by multiple skull bone fractures. The second is an abrasion on the left side of the cheek. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is shock and hemorrhage resulting from antemortem head injury. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the role of assault has been assigned to two persons, and the nature of Injury No. 1, as mentioned in the medical report, could not have been caused by a danda (stick). It is submitted that no independent eyewitness has actually seen the incident. It is further contended that co-accused persons, namely Deepu @ Sandeep Kumar Saroj, Anil Saroj, Golu @ Ritesh Saroj, Rohit Saroj, and Vijay @ Chikhuri, have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court in Bail Application Nos. 244/2025, 1866/2025, 1955/2025, 2353/2025, and 11919/2024, vide orders dated 05.03.2025, 07.03.2025, 10.01.2025,
20.03.2025, and 05.02.2025 respectively. The certified copies of the said bail orders have been filed collectively as Annexure No. 10 to the present bail application. It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that role of assault is on the applicant. Perused the record so also the statement of the injured. Having considered the submissions advanced and perusal of the record and the facts that role of assault has been given to the two persons, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 7.6.2024 coupled with the fact that co- accused persons have been granted bail, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Rahul Saroj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case, the applicant 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. Order Date :- 4.6.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
with co-accused persons named in the First Information Report and 4–5 unknown persons in a marriage procession with a common intention and with intent to kill hurled abuses and assaulted the sons of Rohit Saroj and Neeraj Saroj with lathi and danda. As a result both have suffering grievous injuries. It is further alleged that Rohit Saroj succumbed to the injuries on the way, while Neeraj Saroj was admitted to the District Hospital for treatment. It is submitted that as per the statement of the injured eyewitness the allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the deceased with a stick/danda on the head. It is further submitted that the allegation of assault on the head of the deceased has been attributed to two accused persons, the applicant and one Monu. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident in question occurred in two phases. The injured witness, Neeraj, as per his own statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is not an eyewitness to the second phase of the incident. He has only witnessed the first phase. However, according to the prosecution version, the deceased sustained fatal injuries during the second phase of the occurrence. It is further submitted that the other two alleged eyewitnesses, Krishna and Shubham, are in fact not eyewitnesses to the actual incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the postmortem report and submitted that the deceased sustained two injuries. The first is a contused swelling measuring 10 cm × 10 cm on the right side of the parieto-temporal region of the head, accompanied by multiple skull bone fractures. The second is an abrasion on the left side of the cheek. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is shock and hemorrhage resulting from antemortem head injury. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the role of assault has been assigned to two persons, and the nature of Injury No. 1, as mentioned in the medical report, could not have been caused by a danda (stick). It is submitted that no independent eyewitness has actually seen the incident. It is further contended that co-accused persons, namely Deepu @ Sandeep Kumar Saroj, Anil Saroj, Golu @ Ritesh Saroj, Rohit Saroj, and Vijay @ Chikhuri, have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court in Bail Application Nos. 244/2025, 1866/2025, 1955/2025, 2353/2025, and 11919/2024, vide orders dated 05.03.2025, 07.03.2025, 10.01.2025,
20.03.2025, and 05.02.2025 respectively. The certified copies of the said bail orders have been filed collectively as Annexure No. 10 to the present bail application. It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that role of assault is on the applicant. Perused the record so also the statement of the injured. Having considered the submissions advanced and perusal of the record and the facts that role of assault has been given to the two persons, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 7.6.2024 coupled with the fact that co- accused persons have been granted bail, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Rahul Saroj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case, the applicant 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. Order Date :- 4.6.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench