Sitendra Kumar @ Satendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39880

¶2

Court No. - 30

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6455 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sitendra Kumar @ Satendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite partyState.

¶8

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0305 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 109, 110, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 324(4), 324(5) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 04.12.2024 at about 6 a.m. when the applicant along with co-accused is said to have attacked family members of informant and inflicted injuries upon them.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel has adverted to the contents of F.I.R. as well as statement of the injured to submit that no specific role has been assigned to applicant of causing injury to family members of the informant. It is submitted that even the alleged recovery is not at the instance of applicant, who is under incarceration since 06.12.2024 without any previous criminal history. He further submits that other co-accused, namely-Smt. Babita, Anita, Sunil @ Sonu, Indresh, Shivcharan and Dinesh @ Dinesh Chandra have already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1354/2025, 3025/2025, 3291/2025, 3525/2025, 3927/2025 and 4115/2025 vide orders dated 03.04.2025, 10.04.2025, 21.04.2025, 02.05.2025, 07.05.2025 and 16.05.2025 respectively.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that involvement of applicant in injuring family members of informant is clearly made out from the F.I.R. as well as

¶12

statement of witnesses. He, however, admits that the applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of injured, only general allegations of causing injury have been levelled against the applicant without any specific role being assigned; recovery also does not appear to have been made at the instance of the applicant, who is under incarceration since since 06.12.2024 without any previous criminal history. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Sitendra Kumar @ Satendra involved in 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:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶20

(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 proceed against him/her under Section 269 of BNS.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS.

¶22

(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/her in accordance with law.

¶23

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 -Piyush-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sitendra Kumar @ Satendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitendra Kumar @ Satendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Baliram @ Balram Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishnakant Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Uday Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suman Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 11 Others