Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.33 of 2025 under Section 281, 3(5), 109, 352 BNS, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

Notices to respondent no. 2 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶12

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 28.01.2025 at around 9:30 p.m., the complainant’s brother was traveling through Kamtaganj market in his four-wheeler when Rohit Yadav (son of Ramesh Yadav, resident of Chachapara), Durgesh Pal (son of Lodhai, resident of Pannatikri), Satish Yadav (son of Shri Yadav, resident of Pannatikri), Vijay Yadav (son of an unknown person, resident of Baini), along with some unknown persons riding three motorcycles, deliberately hit the complainant’s brother’s vehicle. When the complainant’s brother questioned them, the miscreants abused him using foul language with the intention of killing him and began assaulting him, leaving him severely injured. Nearby people intervened, rescued the complainant’s brother, informed the police, and took him to CHC Bhadaiya for medical treatment.

¶13

NABAIL No. 1413 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the investigation, his arrest was protected by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 1349 of 2025. A perusal of the discharge summary shows that the incident was a road traffic accident. The patient was managed conservatively, and no fracture was detected in the CT scan. The injuries sustained are simple in nature, and the prosecution case contains only general allegations against the applicant as well as the co-accused persons. A charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, no purpose would be served in sending the applicant behind bars at this stage.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant; however, he could not demonstrate from the record that the injured sustained any fracture.

¶17

Perused the record.

¶18

On due consideration of the discharge summary as well as the chargesheet, it is noted that only general allegations have been levelled in the prosecution case. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and the injuries sustained by the complainant appear to be simple in nature and may have resulted from the road traffic accident. The accused applicant may, therefore, be the victim of a false implication.

¶19

Accordingly, in light of the judgment of Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 116], and without entering into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶20

Since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the trial court within twenty days from today. In case of such surrender, the trial court shall enlarge the applicant Satish Kumar on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) 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

¶22

NABAIL No. 1413 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶26

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶27

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶28

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶29

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

¶31

October 7, 2025

¶32

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶33

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

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

Radheshyam Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ankit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sarala Bajpai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Swadesh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Santosh Bharti Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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