Saud Alias Hatela Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29673 of 2025

¶3

Saud Alias Hatela

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amar Jeet Upadhyay, Sonakshi Arora	Araf Khan,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ch. Dil Nisar, G.A., Rahul	Gaur

¶6

Court No. - 68

¶7

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Case called out in the revised list.

¶9

Heard Shri Amar Jeet Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109(1), 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial before the Court below.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused-applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case crime number. It is contended that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.07.2025.

¶12

Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed against the applicant on 19.07.2025 and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required. As per injury report, injuries received to the injured are on non-vital part of the body. It is also submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of two cases, which has been duly explained in paragraph no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit, and in both

¶13

BAIL No. 29673 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

the cases, the applicant is already on bail. The bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is contended that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence in case he is released on bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶17

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie , but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the accused-applicant, Saud @ Hatela, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶20

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶21

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶22

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate in the trial.

¶23

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶24

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶25

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶26

April 20, 2026 Vibha Singh

¶27

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

Saud Alias Hatela v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saud Alias Hatela 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Richa Bhargava Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Kumar vs State of U.P.

Vijay Singh Shakya Alias Bablu Shakya Vs State of U.P.

Deeraj Kumar Upadhyay @ Deenu Vs State of U.P.

Razab Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P.