Satyam Bajpei Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4564

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 224 of 2024

Applicant :- Satyam Bajpei Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kr. Misra,Utkarsh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the statement of the victim under section 164 CrPC shows that she knew the applicant for the last 4-5 years and was in relationship. The victim resided with the applicant for eight days in Ayodhya and at no point in time, she raised any alarm. No corroborative evidence has been found in the medical report. The victim is major. During trial, the victim and the complainant both have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case at all. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 26.7.2023.

¶8

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the complainant and the victim before the court, the applicant has no criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is in jail since 26.7.2023, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

5. Let the applicant Satyam Bajpei, involved in Case Crime No.766 of 2023 under sections 376, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Barabanki, be released on bail on his

¶12

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:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

6. Observation(s) made herein above shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on merit of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 kkb/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyam Bajpei v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Bajpei v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shaukin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Chandra Shekhar Rawat @ Goley Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Maniram Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Hazrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Neeraj Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.