Allowed

Satendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023BAIL/55268/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 302 IPC, the High Court allowed the applicant's bail despite the prior rejection by the trial court. The judge accepted the applicant's arguments regarding lack of direct evidence and procedural irregularities without evaluating the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with conditions including not tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

Satendra Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55268 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2022 at Police Station- Jani, District- Meerut under Section 302 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 21.06.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 15.11.2022.

¶7

The following arguments made by Shri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Sri Vinod Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Markandey Singh, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶8

(1). The applicant was not named in the FIR.

¶9

(2). The applicant was nominated three weeks after his arrest in the statement of the wife of the deceased. The statement is

¶10

an after thought and has been given only to falsely implicate the applicant.

¶11

(3). There is no direct evidence against the applicant. At best even as per the prosecution this is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and the links are unreliable.

¶12

(4). The applicant was not the last seen with the deceased at a time proximate to the death of the later.

¶13

(5). The weapon was planted on the applicant to show the proficiency of the police investigators.

¶14

(6). There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.

¶15

(7). The weapon cannot be connected with the offence.

¶16

(8). The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant belongs to the economically poor strata of the society and is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. The applicant has been falsely nominated in a number of cases only to show the proficiency of the police

¶17

investigators. The said criminal cases do not depict commission of any heinous crime and do not have any bearing on the instant bail application. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted in the said cases.

¶18

(9). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶19

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant- Satendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Pravin

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadiq Ali Vs State of U.P.

Ishrat Ali Vs State of U.P.

Lakhan Vs State of U.P.

Mohit @ Ranvir Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jamil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aashu @ Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P.