Satish Saini vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39409 of 2025

Satish Saini

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Copy of the statement of co-accused Deepak Paswan, produced by Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(4), 317(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Pakadi, District- Ballia during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Deepak Paswan in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant. Further, at this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 16 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 23.7.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶12

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that the

¶13

BAIL No. 39409 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

applicant was not named in the First Information Report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Deepak Paswan in police custody. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence.

¶16

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶17

In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

¶18

" We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a historysheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked ."

¶19

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶20

Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Let the applicant- Satish Saini , involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶22

BAIL No. 39409 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶25

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶26

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶27

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;