Satyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19854

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1960 of 2025

Applicant :- Satyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶7

As per office report, notice to complainant/ informant/ opposite party no.2 has already been served but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.433 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS and Section 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 Police Station Kamlapur, District Sitapur.

¶9

As per contents of FIR, the incident allegedly enticed away the minor daughter of informant on 19.11.2024.

¶10

It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from the statement of prosecutrix under Section 180 and 183 BNSS only she has not supported the prosecution version and has specifically stated that she went away on her own. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 26.11.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the aforesaid aspects.

¶12

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is

¶14

neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶15

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that although allegations of enticing away minor daughter of informant has been levelled against applicant but the same do not appear to be supported by statements of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The applicant is under incarceration since 26.11.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶17

As per submission of learned counsel for the complainant, the examination-in-chief of complainant has already been concluded.

¶18

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶19

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let applicant, Satyam , involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) 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.

¶22

(ii) 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

¶23

proceed against him under Section 269 BNS.

¶24

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under 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 209 BNS.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. 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.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Sharif @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Salma Bano Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rajan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dinesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Anup Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education, Lucknow and Others

Dr. Avinash Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education, Lucknow and Others