Santram Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4017 of 2025

Santram	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohammad Zafar Yab Khan, Shahroze Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 72

¶4

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶5

1. This case has been taken up on a mention.

¶6

2. Heard Mr. Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2025 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kathela Samay Mata, District Siddharth Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant belongs to scheduled caste community and prior to execution of the sale deed he obtained permission from the District Magistrate. It is further submitted that the first informant was fully aware of the facts that he has simply lodged the present FIR to harass the applicant. It is submitted that total consideration amount for execution of the sale deed was Rs. 3,57,000/- and when the first informant started harassing the applicant, he returned Rs. 1,00,000/- to the first informant. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is

¶9

NABAIL No. 4017 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that investigation is still in progress.

¶13

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

7. As per first information report, the allegation against the applicant is that he executed the sale deed to the first informant fraudulently without obtaining permission from the authority concerned and thereby caused loss to him. It has been submitted that the applicant had obtained prior permission from the authority concerned before executing the sale deed. It is also submitted that when first informant started harassing the applicant, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was returned back to him.

¶15

8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶16

9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Santram involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶19

NABAIL No. 4017 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶22

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶23

(iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶25

12. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

October 9, 2025

¶28

Abhishek

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram v. State of U.P. 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