Satish and Another Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49362

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6680 of 2025

Applicant :- Satish And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicants- Satish and Ram Naresh Sahu seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1086 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 338, 336(3), 61(2), 340(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicant no. 1 was working as an agent in L.I.C. since 1987 and thereafter he was working as an agent with LUCC Company. It is submitted that the applicant no. 2 was also working as an agent in the same Company. It is submitted that the allegations have been levelled against the applicants that they have dubbed the persons and received money which are false. It is further submitted that the money as received was transferred to the Company. It is further

¶10

submitted that the applicant no. 1 is although named in the F.I.R. but the applicant no. 2 Ram Naresh Sahu is not named in the F.I.R. and his implication is surfaced during investigation. Further while placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the applicants have been involved in the case pertaining to the said Company relating to other investors of the same nature. It is further stated that the applicants were also involved in a case under the Gangsters Act in which stay of arrest has been granted by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025, paragraph no. 20 of the affidavit has been place before this Court. It is submitted that co-accused Surendra Pal Singh, Mansingh and Ashok Ahirwar have been granted by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12.03.2025 and 05.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8710 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1293 of 2025 respectively. Photocopies of the orders have been produced before this Court which are taken on record. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.11.2024.

¶11

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

¶12

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicants was the agents of LUCC Company. The applicant no. 1 is named in the F.I.R. whereas the applicant no. 2 is not named in the F.I.R. and his name is surfaced during investigation. The applicant were involved in case under the Gangsters Act in which they were granted interim protection by this Court. The co-accused Surendra Pal Singh, Mansingh and Ashok Ahirwar have been granted by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12.03.2025 and 05.02.2025.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicants - Satish and Ram Naresh Sahu 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicants 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

¶19

(v) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

¶20

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

¶21

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 applicants to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed .

¶23

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

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Manoj

¶26

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

Satish and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish and Another 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