Satyam @ Sooraj Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56774

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11660 of 2025

Applicant :- Satyam @ Sooraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Saddam Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 7.4.2025.

¶8

Heard Sri Saddam Husain, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.17 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 331(4), 115(2), 351(3), 324(4) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Paniyara, District- Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim in the night of 11.1.2025 at about 01:00 a.m.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in

¶14

Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶15

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 there being no medical corroboration of the incident and the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Satyam @ Sooraj Yadav , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Vikas

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

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

Satyam @ Sooraj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam @ Sooraj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kasim vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Durgesh Giri vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nadeem vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rishabh Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Sikandra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Adil @ Ayush Gurjar vs State of U.P.