Partly allowed

Santoshi Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jun 2025NABAIL/736/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted interim anticipatory bail to applicants facing charges under Section 108 of BNS, finding no proximate link to the deceased's suicide and noting they were elderly and cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Grant of interim anticipatory bail on the furnishing of personal bonds and two solvent sureties each to the applicants, subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, tampering, and leaving Indi

Santoshi Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 736 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Santoshi Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Pal Singh,Ambrish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2025, under Section 108 of BNS, Police Station Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next submits that, though the allegation against the applicants is that they have abetted the deceased to commit suicide, but there is no proximity at all, as is apparent from bare perusal of the allegation in the First Information Report and other record. He next submits that the incident is that when the deceased went for 'vidai' of his wife and it was denied twice, he returned his house and committed suicide while hanging himself. He further submits that ingredients of Section 108 of BNS do not attract in the present matter. He also submits that the applicants are cooperating with the investigation proceedings and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are 70 and 65 years of age respectively. He added that the applicants have no previous criminal history and they are cooperating with the investigation proceedings and they would never flee away from the same, even then, the police is adamant to arrest them. Thus, submission is that the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has submitted that the applicants are not entitled for any relief.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it

¶10

transpires that there is no proximity at all regarding abatement by the applicants; the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS do not attract in the present matter; the applicants are cooperating with the investigating proceedings and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are 70 and 65 years of age respectively; the applicants have no previous criminal history and they have undertaken that they will never flee away from the investigation proceedings, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶11

This Court is also not unmindful to the judgment and order rendered in the case of R. Shashirekha Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363].

¶12

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the applicants, namely, Santoshi Singh, Prakash Singh @ Pragas Singh and Smt. Neelam Singh @ Nilu Singh, shall be released forthwith, in the event of their arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii) that the applicants 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;

¶15

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the

¶20

bail.

¶21

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶22

Steps be taken within a week.

¶23

If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

¶24

List/put up this matter in the third week of August,2025.

¶25

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits.

¶26

The applicants are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 09.07.2025 at 02.00 p.m. and subsequently thereafter, failing which, the Investigating Officer shall inform this court, while filing the Counter Affidavit.

¶27

Order Date :- 27.6.2025 kkv/

¶28

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

Santoshi Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sher Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Krishna Mohan Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 6 Others

Guddu Alias Mahin Beg and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Tushal Alias Vishal Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Sushila Nishad Thru. Her Husband Subhash Chandra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another