Satish Saini vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39985 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

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(4), 317(5) B.N.S., Police StationPakadi, District- Ballia, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant contends 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 surfaced during the course of investigation. The alleged CCTV footage does not connect the applicant with the offence. 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 23.07.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

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

¶11

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report;

¶12

BAIL No. 39985 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

his name surfaced during the course of investigation. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter 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."

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 court concerned subject to

¶21

BAIL No. 39985 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

conditions that he:

¶24