Satish Kumar @ Satish Rawat @ Satish Rao Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the sister of the informant was married to the applicant in the year 2013. Since the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and was ousted from her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the applicant subsequently contracted a second marriage. The said second marriage was opposed by the deceased, the sister of the informant. Due to the cruelty committed upon her by the applicant and his second wife, she had been residing with the informant for the last several years.

¶14

It is further alleged that on 22.08.2024, while she had gone to pursue a case at the Lucknow Civil Court, at about 4:45 p.m., she jumped from the multistorey building of the Court and committed suicide. In the suicide note recovered, the applicant and his second wife have been held responsible for the incident.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is the admitted case of the

¶16

BAIL No. 11947 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

prosecution that since December, 2013, the deceased was living separately, which is evident from the statement of Shivbalak. It is further submitted that no charge-sheet has been filed against the alleged second wife of the applicant, as the allegation regarding the second marriage was found to be false during investigation. It is thus submitted that the essential ingredients to attract Section 108 BNSS are missing. Except the suicide note, no other material has been collected by the prosecution against the applicant.

¶19

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant absconding or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail in any manner.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute that no charge sheet has been filed against the alleged second wife of the applicant.

¶21

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the applicant is in jail since 23.08.2024, has no criminal history, prima facie ingredients to attract Section 108 BNSS appear to be missing, charge sheet has already been filed in the matter and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant Satish Kumar @ Satish Rawat @ Satish Rao be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

BAIL No. 11947 of 2024

¶28

3

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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 IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶32

(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. (now Section 84 BNSS)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 IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶33

October 6, 2025

¶34

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶35

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Kumar @ Satish Rawat @ Satish Rao v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar @ Satish Rawat @ Satish Rao v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Neeraj Yadav Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suman @ Siya Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Guddu @ Ayodhya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Satish Kumar @ Satish Rawat @ Satish Rao vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Teerath Nishad vs State of U.P. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.