Satya Prakash Sharma vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38811 of 2025

Satya Prakash Sharma

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Abhinav Tripathi, Devashish Mitra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Devashish Mitra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. submits that he has received instructions for which time was prayed which was allowed on 6.11.2025.

¶10

Office has without any office report, placed on record computer status of the case showing that the directions given in para-4 of the order dated 6.11.2025 has been complied with.

¶11

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Satya Prakash Sharma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 514 of 2025, under Section(s) 80(2), 85, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Subhash Nagar,District- Bareilly.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that marriage of the deceased/Smt. Soni the sister of the first informant was solemnized with Himanshu Pathak, the son of the applicant 6.6.2021. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail. It is further argued that except ligature mark on the body of the deceased there was no other bodily injury and cause of death of the deceased as opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging although viscera was preserved but as per report of analysis of viscera which is annexed at page-45 of the paper book, no chemical poison was found in it. It is submitted that investigation in the matter has completed and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 18.10.2025, para-12 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is further argued

¶13

BAIL No. 38811 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only being the family member of the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.08.2025.

¶16

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

¶17

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The husband of the deceased is in jail. Except ligature mark on the body of the deceased there was no other bodily injury and cause of death of the deceased as opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Viscera was preserved but as per report of analysis of viscera no chemical poison was found in it. Charge sheet has been submitted in the matter against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶18

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.

¶19

Let the applicant- Satya Prakash Sharma, 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that 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.

¶23

(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 his 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 him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶24

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

¶25

BAIL No. 38811 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

The bail application is allowed.

¶31

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

¶32

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶33

November 26, 2025 Naresh

¶34

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash Sharma 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

Smt Sonali Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Murari @ Aditya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gautam Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaihind @ Jayendra Tiwari vs State of U.P.