Satyendra Rawat Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the son of the informant went to Behma Bazar on 23.06.2025 at about 05:00 PM and did not return for 2–3 days. The wife of the informant's son submitted a written report at Police Station Mahboobabad, District Sitapur. On 30.06.2025, when the informant showed the photograph of his son to the owner of Rathaur Dhaba, he stated that he had seen the informant's son on 23.06.2025 with the applicant and the co-accused persons. Except for the last seen evidence, no material has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant. The charge sheet in the case has already been filed.

¶15

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has no criminal history. The co-accused Nirmal Singh Yadav @ Nirmal, who has been assigned a similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 11637 of 2025. The applicant, therefore, seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently

¶17

BAIL No. 9823 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

opposed the bail prayer. However, could not dispute the fact that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that co-accused Nirmal Singh Yadav @ Nirmal was granted bail on the wrong pretext that he was not named in the FIR, however, he concedes that except for the last seen evidence, there is no other material against the applicant. He also submits that till date the son of the complainant has not been recovered.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid and also the fact that except for the last seen evidence, no other material has been collected by the Investigating Agency against the applicant, so also the bail order of co-accused Nirmal Singh Yadav @ Nirmal, who has been assigned a similar role and applicant has no criminal history and has been languishing in jail since 10.07.2025, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶23

Let the applicant- Satyendra Rawat be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶24

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶25

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶26

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶29

December 10, 2025 Vinay/-

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyendra Rawat v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Rawat v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. 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

Pancham Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohammad Wasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vivek Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Mukesh Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sahabuddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramtej Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home, Lucknow