Allahabad High Court
SATYAM SINHAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Satyam Sinha under Sections 110 and 115(2) of the Indian Penal Code in a case involving alleged assault resulting in a fractured parietal bone. The applicant argued that he had no specific role in the incident, possessed no prior criminal record, and was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, and the risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence. Finding that the applicant’s lack of a specific role and clean record justified bail, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions. The order stipulated that any breach of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged assault charges.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant's antecedents, and the possibility of fleeing justify denial of bail.
- Whether the Court may impose conditions on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 110, 115(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- assault
- bail conditions
- court discretion
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2089 of 2026
Satyam Sinha
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar
Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. 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.
7. 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
NABAIL No. 2089 of 2026
2
the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.
8. 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.
9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. 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 :-
(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;
(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;
(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of
bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court
concerned.
11. 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.
February 26, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…