Allahabad High Court
Saroj vs State Of U.P. on 20 November, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:207396
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40482 of 2025
Saroj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Arjun Singh Solanki
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Arfi, G.A., Ram Jatan Yadav
And
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40488 of 2025
Anjali Alias Bhokal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Arjun Singh Solanki
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Arfi, G.A., Ram Jatan Yadav
.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Since both the bail applications arise out of the same case crime number, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Heard Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.533 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 316(2) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The son of the informant had told him that he had given Rs.8 lakhs to Rajkumar for the marriage of his two daughters. The son of the informant had gone to the house of the applicants on 29.10.2024, whereby his blood soaked dead body was found and the informant had apprehension that the said accused Rajkumar, his two sons, namely, Ankit and Bhola, and his wife Saroj alongwith his daughter Anjali @ Bhokal, had forced his son to commit suicide.
5. The informant was under severe shock as such could not institute the FIR instantly. The FIR was instituted on 08.11.2024.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS:
6. The FIR is delayed by about ten days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even it indicates that the deceased had committed suicide.
7. The said suicide stand fortified from the post-mortem report, whereby blackening and tattooing have been observed on his temple, which indicates that the shot was made from short range.
8. There is statement of informant- Kavita Pachauri who has stated that the deceased person initially shot at his daughter and had injured her and thereby had committed suicide.
9. A case of suicidal death has been converted into to that of murder by the informant subsequently as an afterthought as the statement of one Munni Devi has been garnered that too after a delay of more than eight months of the incident and she has stated that the co-accused Ankit had shot at the deceased person and committed his murder.
10. The said allegations are per se false. The statement of Munni Devi has been recorded belatedly just to add colour to the prosecution story. Even the said delay has not been explained, as such, the applicants are entitled for bail.
11. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 10.06.2025 and are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
12. The statement of Munni Devi recorded on 08.06.2025 has not been annexed by the counsel for applicants alongwith the bail application and the said concealment speaks volume of complicity of the applicants.
13. The dead body of the deceased was retrieved from the house of the applicants, as such, they are not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
14. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.
15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that ?bail is a rule and jail is an exception?.
17. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.
18. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A./State Law Officer.
19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the post-mortem report indicates that it might be a case of suicide, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima- facie the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
20. Let the applicants- Saroj and Anjali Alias Bhokal involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
November 20, 2025
(Ravi Kant)
