Satyawan @ Satyabhan vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32340

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 773 of 2025

Applicant :- Satyawan @ Satyabhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-Satyawan @ Satyabhan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 124 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 308, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is also submitted that co-accused Veermati and two others who are named in the FIR, have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 13.11.2024 in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 10712 of 2024 and the applicant having same role as of the co-accused, hence, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. It is also submitted that no custodial interrogation is required.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the

¶11

learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶13

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶14

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

7. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

¶16

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶17

Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the

¶18

circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶19

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial.

¶20

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶23

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶25

In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶26

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 NSC

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyawan @ Satyabhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyawan @ Satyabhan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Imran vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepesh Upadhyaya vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P.

Bijje Alias Vijendra vs State of U.P.

Pasar Guddu Pathak Alias Gopal Swaroop Pathak vs State of U.P. and Another

Chanchal Rastogi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others