VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Allahabad High Court 2023 › High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh Saini @ Saurabh v. State of U.P

Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits
Court
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Decided
2 November 2023
Case no.
BAIL 45492/2023

Judgment

Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45492 of 2023 Applicant :- Saurabh Saini @ Saurabh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar,Hemant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶2The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the applicant is the employee of one Puneet Goyal. It was alleged that Puneet Goyal informed the police that his employee namely the applicant, was carrying an amount of Rs.26 lakh which was looted from him by two unknown persons. Subsequently, on inquiring from the applicant, he disclosed that he had collected the money from two persons. The police inquired from the said two persons and it was revealed that no such amount was handed over to the applicant. When the applicant was confronted with the said fact, he disclosed that the entire conspiracy was hatched by Puneet Goyal who had taken a loan and there was an insurance in his favour and only to claim insurance money, the whole story was set up.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant argues that from the applicant, an amount of Rs.13,100/- was allegedly recovered and as he was a simple employee and was acting at the instance of his master Puneet Goyal, he is being falsely implicated with the offence in question. The applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 24.09.2023.

¶4Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶5Considering the allegations levelled in the FIR, which are primarily of hatching a conspiracy and the allegations are mainly against Puneet Goyal coupled with the fact that there is no allegation of conspiracy at the instance of the applicant, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, can in any way affect the trial, as such, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶6Let the applicant Saurabh Saini @ Saurabh be released on bail in FIR No.506 of 2023, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 182, 193, 211 & 120B IPC, P.S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

(c) 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. Order Date :- 3.11.2023 nishant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.