Satyam Sinha vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 197 of 2025 under Sections 110, 115(2) B.N.S., Police Station Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and it is alleged that applicant and three other unknown persons are said to have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which, one injured has received injury of fracture of his parietal bone. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he undertakes to co-operate during trial and to appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

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

¶14

No specific role has been assigned to the applicant and as per the FIR, applicant and three unknown persons are said to have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which, one injured is said to have received injury of fracture of his parietal bone.

¶15

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, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and

¶16

NABAIL No. 2089 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶19

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

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant Satyam Sinha 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 :-

¶22

(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;

¶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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

February 26, 2026 Madhurima

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyam Sinha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Sinha 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

Kishor Singh Chandel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyam Sinha Vs State of U.P.

Sahzada Kuraishi @ Mu Shahzada vs State of U.P.

Indrabhan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Singh vs State of U.P.

Kishor Singh Chandel vs State of U.P. and Another