Satyanam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the father of the complainant died on 06.10.2019, and that Gata No. 16270, which was recorded in the name of the deceased as a Sankramani Bhumidhar , was subsequently shown to have been transferred in favour of Mahendra Pal Singh on 15.12.2025 by the applicant, allegedly by impersonating the complainant’s father.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has not received any amount in his bank account towards the alleged sale consideration. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the passbook of the applicant’s UCO Bank account, submitting that although an allegation has been made that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was credited to the applicant’s account, a perusal of the passbook shows that the account balance never exceeded Rs. 2,000/- at any point of time. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely Mahendra Pal Singh, is the beneficiary of the alleged transaction, whereas the applicant is neither a beneficiary nor has any investigation been carried out by the Investigating Officer to establish that the applicant received any such amount.

¶13

BAIL No. 1542 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail; however, upon perusal of the case diary, he could not point out any material to demonstrate that the alleged sale consideration amount was ever credited to or received by the applicant.

¶17

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate, the applicant is in judicial custody since 13.01.2026, and in the absence of any cogent material indicating that the applicant received the alleged amount in his account, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Satyanam , involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 03/2026, Under Sections 319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2) of BNS, Police StationBadosarai, District- Barabanki, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶22

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. 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.

¶23

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶24

March 18, 2026/R.C.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyanam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vimal Kumari and Another vs State U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition, Lko. and Others

Baleshwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and Another

Binam Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Ajeet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Bhagwan Shankar Singh @ Uttam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Umesh Chandra Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others