Allowed¶41

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

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2026NABAIL/736/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed till disposal of trial - S. 108 BNS abetment of suicide, Case Crime No. 0073 of 2025, P.S. Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich - application under S. 482 BNSS (NABAIL No. 736 of 2025) - interim bail of 27.06.2025 confirmed, State showed no adverse material - Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Saurabh Lavania, J., February 9, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail extended to applicants Santoshi Singh, Prakash Singh @ Pragas Singh and Smt. Neelam Singh @ Nilu Singh till disposal of the trial, subject to the conditions in paragraphs 42-48; in case of default the Investigating Agency may move for vacation of the order. ¶41

Santoshi Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants (Santoshi Singh, Prakash Singh @ Pragas Singh and Smt. Neelam Singh @ Nilu Singh) are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0073 of 2025 under Section 108 of BNS, Police Station Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

On merits, the Court found (interim order dated 27.06.2025, reproduced in the judgment) that there was no proximity at all regarding abetment by the applicants and that the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS did not attract.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The learned AGA failed to demonstrate any adverse fact pleaded in the anticipatory bail application, any non-cooperation with the investigation, or any other glaring fact adversely affecting the merits; the applicant had been enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough consideration of the merits.

¶5

Key takeaways

The anticipatory bail application is allowed and anticipatory bail is extended to Santoshi Singh, Prakash Singh @ Pragas Singh and Smt. Neelam Singh @ Nilu Singh till disposal of the trial.ratio¶41
The extension of anticipatory bail is subject to conditions: the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required; shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence; shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; and shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - application under S. 482 BNSS allowed. Applicants sought pre-arrest protection in Case Crime No. 0073 of 2025, S. 108 BNS (allegation of abetment of the deceased's suicide - the case set out being that after 'vidai' of his wife was denied twice, he returned home and committed suicide by hanging), P.S. Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich. By order dated 27.06.2025 the Court had granted interim anticipatory bail, recording that there was no proximity regarding abetment, that the ingredients of S. 108 BNS did not attract, and noting the applicants' cooperation with the investigation, ages (70 and 65) and want of previous criminal history; reference was made to R. Shashirekha Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363]. Service on opposite party no. 2 was held sufficient (office report dated 13.08.2025) but none appeared to oppose. The AGA could not point to any adverse fact or non-cooperation by the applicants. Held, allowing the application: anticipatory bail extended in favour of Santoshi Singh, Prakash Singh @ Pragas Singh and Smt. Neelam Singh @ Nilu Singh till disposal of the trial, subject to conditions (availability for interrogation; no inducement, tampering or intimidation of witnesses; no departure from India without previous permission; appearance before the trial court on each date unless exempted), with liberty to the Investigating Agency to seek vacation of the order in case of default. (Saurabh Lavania, J.)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

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

¶3

Santoshi Singh And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Pal Singh, Ambrish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

As per office report dated 13.08.2025, the service of notice upon the opposite party No.2 is sufficient. However, when the case is taken up, none appeared to oppose the anticipatory bail application.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Case Crime No.0073 of 2025, under Section - 108 of BNS, Police Station- Dargah Sharif, District - Bahraich.

¶12

It appears from the order sheet that vide order dated 27.06.2025, this Court had protected the interest of the applicant. The order dated 27.06.2025, referred, reads as under : -

¶13

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the

¶14

record.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

NABAIL No. 736 of 2025

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

on anticipatory bail.

¶21

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.

¶22

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it 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. 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]. 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:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

NABAIL No. 736 of 2025

¶28

¶29

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless

¶30

personal presence is exempted;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Steps be taken within a week.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

their counter affidavits.

¶38

The applicants are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 09.07.2025 at

¶39

02.00 p.m. and subsequently thereafter, failing which, the Investigating Officer shall inform this court, while filing the Counter Affidavit".

¶40

The learned AGA has failed to inform/demonstrate any adverse fact to the facts which have been pleaded in the anticipatory bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned AGA has also failed to point out any fact on which basis it can be inferred that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicants - Santoshi Singh, Prakash Singh @ Pragas Singh and Smt. Neelam Singh @ Nilu Singh till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶42

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

¶43

(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/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶44

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

¶45

NABAIL No. 736 of 2025

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶50

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶51

February 9, 2026

¶52

ML/-

¶53

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL 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?

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

Shashi Bhushan Singh vs Ms. Kamini Ratan Chauhan Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. State Tax Lko.

Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Girja Shanker Mishra vs Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager/Unit Head I.T.I. Ltd. Gonda

Rinki Gautam and Another vs Sri Shubham Shukla Distt. Basic Education Officer Distt. Balrampur

Ramesh Srivastava and 3 Others vs Mr. Nitin Singh, Joint Magistrate / S.D.M., Tahsil Sadar, Varanasi