Satendra Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 998 of 2026

Satendra Upadhyay

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manjusha Kapil, Kumar Kapil Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS has been filed by the accused-applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 0953 of 2025, under Sections 3(5)/108/352/351(3) of BNS, 2023 (old Sections 34, 306, 504, 506 IPC), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶11

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR has been lodged on 13.10.2025 under sections 3(5), 108, 352, 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 (old Sections 34, 306, 504, 506 IPC) against seven named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the brother of the informant who was a cloth merchant had committed suicide on 12.10.2025 and in the suicide note, names of the name accused persons were there that they were demanding 10 per cent interest on the amount which was given as a loan or to suicide. They also used to harass the brother of the informant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the suicide note whereas the persons whose names were there in the suicide note i.e. co-accused persons namely Uma Kant Upadhyaya, Ranjeet, Balram Singh, Veer Bahadur and Shubham Verma, they have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the remaining two co-accused persons, their arrest has been stayed by this Court by order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9938 of 2025 & 9939 of 2025. Copies of the bail orders and the stay orders have been enclosed collectively as Annexure no. 8 to the paper book. One of the co-accused Shubham Verma whose name was there in the suicide note has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1642 of 2025 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 13.11.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶13

NABAIL No. 998 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶16

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.953 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 108, 351(3), 352 of BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki.

¶17

3. The FIR in question was lodged alleging that on 12.10.2025, an informant was received by the informant that his brother has committed suicide. In the suicide note, it was mentioned that all the applicant used to threat him for returning the money with interest, because of which, he committed suicide. The suicide note is annexed as Annexure-5 to the bail application.

¶18

4. It is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that one of the co-accused, namely, Ranjeet Singh has been granted protection of arrest stay in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9938 of 2025.

¶19

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶20

6. Considering the suicide note and the allegation in the FIR, prima facie, material to suggest abetment as defined under the BNSS Act is absent and also considering the law as explained in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another vs Inspector of Police; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶21

7. In the event of arrest, let the applicant Shubham Verma be released on anticipatory bail in the abovesaid first information report number till submission of the charge-sheet on his furnishing personal bond and sureties of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and will co-operate with investigation;

¶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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court."

¶25

It is further submitted that the case of the applicant is on better footing as such he is entitled for parity of anticipatory bail granted to aforesaid coaccused person.

¶26

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶27

It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Lakhpedabag, Neem Chauraha, P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki and the FIR has been lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki, so there is no chance of absconding the applicant. The applicant on oath has specifically stated in paragraph nos. 32 to 42 that he will co-operate in the investigation; he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court; will not influence any witness or temper with prosecution evidence and will not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted.

¶28

It is further submitted that the applicant is apprehending arrest by the Police

¶29

NABAIL No. 998 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

and that is why, he has approached this Court by filing the present anticipatory bail application.

¶32

On the other hand, learned AGA opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has submitted that from the FIR, the offence is made out against the applicant but he is unable to dispute the parity of the anticipatory bail order, as claimed above by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶33

As per the judgment in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in MANU/SC/0949/2015 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him.

¶34

In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [AIR 1994 SC 1349], the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶35

After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The applicant has not previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by the Court; as undertaken by the learned counsel for the applicant there is no possibility of fleeing from the judicial proceedings and in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court finds it a fit case to issue order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS.

¶36

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed . The applicant is given the benefit of parity of anticipatory bail order dated 13.11.2025 granted to co-accused namely Shubham Verma, as quoted hereinabove on the same terms.

¶37

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶38

May 25, 2026

¶39

Nitesh

¶40

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satendra Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Similar cases

Mehtaab Hashmi @ Mehtaab @ Mahtaab vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Subhash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Karan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pooran and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.