Satendra vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70342

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14670 of 2025

Applicant :- Satendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Satendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 35 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Jarcha, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:

¶10

(i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶11

(ii) The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased Neelam.

¶12

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Neelam was solemnized with Nishant son of the applicant on 08.03.2024.

¶13

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The incident which is alleged to have taken place on 23.02.2025 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 27.02.2025 which is after four days of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation for the same.

¶14

(v) Postmortem examination report shows that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of antemortem injury (hanging).

¶15

(vi) Nishant the husband of the deceased is in jail, para 21 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court.

¶16

(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 29.03.2025.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶18

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of antemortem injury (hanging). Nishant the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶24

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial

¶26

court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶27

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶28

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶29

The bail application is allowed .

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶31

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 M. ARIF

¶32

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF 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?

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

Ravindra vs State of U.P.

Jatashankar vs State of U.P.

Raman Singh vs State of U.P.

Monu vs State of U.P.

Soran vs State of U.P.

Meenesh Devi vs State of U.P.