Allahabad High Court
Mantu Saroj vs State Of U.P. on 14 February, 2023
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6882 of 2023 Applicant :- Mantu Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeeva Kumar Yadava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Sharma Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Firdosh Ahmad, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Sanjeeva Kumar Yadava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Srikant Tiwari, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the first informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 393 of 2022, U/S 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 302/34 IPC and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varuna Commissionerate, Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused Rahul Saroj, who are stated to be the head of the gang, are stated to have come to the liquor shop of the informant and after consuming some liquor, are stated to have hurled abuses at the brother of the informant. After being asked to refrain from doing so, the applicant and the named accused persons alongwith twenty persons in all, are stated to have come to the shop again on 12.10.2022 at about 7.20 pm and started beating the brother of the informant Raj Kumar Singh by lathis, rods and danda with the common object to put him to death. On the intervention of his father Pashupati Nath Singh, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have inflicted injuries to him also thereby injuring both the persons causing the death of the father of the informant Pashupati Nath Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that there is no recovery from the applicant. The recovery has been made from both Vishal Gupta @ Sahil and Aryan Saroj @ Tamatar. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is a national football player. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant has strong alibi as he was working at Gas Agency. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has next submitted that the CCTV footage fetched by the prosecution are not clear. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are general allegations against all the accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to them.
6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person as it was he, who had an altercation with the brother of the informant namely, Raj Kumar Singh and due to the ire, he is stated to have come back with the other accused persons and has even assaulted the father and son both. Learned counsel has next stated that there is CCTV footage of the shop in which also, the applicant is seen at the place of occurrence.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial, considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment and taking into consideration the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence, and the statement of the injured person Raj Kumar Singh, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the court below may proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023\Shalini