Allowed¶14

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2025BAIL/35825/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; Allahabad High Court; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 35825 of 2025; Sections 316(5) BNS; fraud/embezzlement of Rs. 6,23,800/-; applicant's role surfaced via section 180 BNSS statements; parity with bailed co-accused Yash Malik and Nikhil Kumar; custody since 10.09.2025; Article 21 speedy trial; Manish Sisodia para 53; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51; conditional bail; Santosh Rai, J.; December 1, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Satendra Kumar released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the enumerated conditions; identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds are accepted. ¶14

Satendra Kumar vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Satendra Kumar, arraigned in Case Crime No. 256 of 2025 under Sections 316(5) BNS, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, should be released on bail during pendency of trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Bail granted: finding force in the applicant's submissions, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, the larger mandate of Article 21, paragraph 53 of Manish Sisodia and the dicta in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil, the Court directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Bail is subject to conditions: (i) the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses; (ii) he shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present; (iii) he shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, personally or as directed; (iv) he shall remain present in person on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement; (v) on misuse of bail liberty, the trial court shall initiate proceedings strictly in accordance with law; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court, and identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties is to be verified before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Key takeaways

The bail order was passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Santosh Rai, J.) allowed the bail application of Satendra Kumar in Case Crime No. 256 of 2025 under Sections 316(5) BNS, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar. The F.I.R. was initially registered by the applicant himself as informant; his role surfaced during investigation on the statements of witness Smt. Varsha and others recorded under section 180 BNSS, wherein he was said to be beneficiary of Rs. 11,487/- out of Rs. 6,23,800/- alleged to have been embezzled along with co-accused. Named co-accused Yash Malik and Nikhil Kumar had already been granted bail by the Court (orders dated 07.11.2025 and 14.11.2025 in Bail Applications Nos. 36834 and 39912 of 2025). The applicant, in jail since 10.09.2025 with criminal history explained in the supplementary affidavit, and trial unlikely to conclude in the near future, was released on bail on a personal bond with two sureties, the Court acting on the uncertainty of trial conclusion, Article 21, paragraph 53 of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, and the dicta in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil, without expressing any opinion on merits, and subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; undertaking against adjournments; presence at trial and at framing of charge and statement recording; proceedings on misuse), breach being a ground for cancellation; identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds are accepted.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35825 of 2025

¶3

Satendra Kumar

¶4

				.....Applicant(s)
		Versus
State of U.P.				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Atmaram Yadav	Nadiwal,	Dinesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

1.Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in the Court today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA, Shri A.P. Singh, for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Satendra Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 256 of 2025, under Sections 316(5) BNS, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that F.I.R. was initially registered by the accused applicant as informant/ complainant, but during the course of investigation, the name of accused applicant was surfaced on the basis of statement of witness Smt. Varsha and others recorded under section 180 of BNSS before the Investigating Officer and in which, it has been stated that accused applicant is beneficiary of Rs. 11,487/-, thus in whole incident Rs. 6,23,800/- is said to have be embezzled by the accused applicant and other co-accused persons. He further submits that two persons Yash Malik and Nikhil are named in the F.I.R. and no specific and separate role has been assigned to the applicant during the course of investigation, but after partial investigation, the role and involvement of accused applicant came

¶10

BAIL No. 35825 of 2025

¶11

¶12

into light and it is alleged that accused applicant in connivance with other accused persons committed fraud. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that named co-accused Yash Malik and Nikhil Kumar have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025 and 14.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36834 of 2025 and 39912 of 2025. He further submits that there is criminal history of applicant and the same has been explained in para no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.09.2025.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶15

BAIL No. 35825 of 2025

¶16

¶17

court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶19

(ii) 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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶21

(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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶22

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

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

¶24

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

(Santosh Rai,J.)

December 1, 2025

Bhanu

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhananjay Giri vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra vs State of U.P.

Tahir Khan vs State of U.P.

Lalai vs State of U.P.

Vakil Nishad vs State of U.P.

Amit Dubey vs State of U.P.