Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: SC No. 688/2026
FIR No. : 21/2000
State v. Satish Yadav
PS : Roop Nagar
06.07.2026
Present: Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. CPP for the State.
Sh. Amresh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant Satish Yadav.
IO Insp. Sumit Kumar in person.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders at 4:00 pm.
(Nishant Garg)
ASJ-06 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
06.07.2026
Order:
This order shall dispose of an application for bail u/s
483 BNSS filed on behalf of accused/applicant Satish Yadav. The
application is contested by the prosecution.
Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that
the accused/applicant Satish Yadav was declared PO vide order
dated 21.10.2000 but he never evaded law and was openly
residing at his native place; the complainant in his complaint did
not mention the surname or fathers name of “Satish”; the
applicant resides at a different village as mentioned by the
complainant in the complaint which are 30 kms apart; in his
warrants of arrest also, fathers name of accused/applicant Satish
Yadav was wrongly mentioned; he has been in custody for last
more than six months; the case is based on circumstantial
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
evidence and there is no documentary evidence to connect him
with the offence; there are no statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C on
record. Hence, he be granted concession of bail. Reliance has
been placed on
Jogga Singh v. State of H.P., Crl. Misc Petition
(Main) No. 1535 of 2021 decided on 08.09.2021 (H.P. High
Court).
Ld. CPP for the State, on the other hand, submitted
that the allegations against the accused/applicant are grave and
serious in nature; he came to be arrested after 25 years of the
offence; and thus, the bail application is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions and have
gone through the case file. I have also gone through the judgment
relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Facts of the case are that on 06.02.2000, an
information was received vide DD No.4A regarding murder of a
boy with an axe; at this, Inspector Jagbir Singh along with other
police officials reached the spot where body of deceased Sajan
was found; blood was there on the bed; near the body, an axe
having blood on it was also lying. At the spot, statement of
complainant Ajay @ Sunil was recorded that he was staying at
H.No.12/13 along with deceased Sajan and Satish; they used to
have food with him; deceased Sajan used to keep a record of the
expenses incurred on food which were divided between all three
of them. On 05.02.2000 at about 9:30 p.m, while all three of
them were taking account of expenses incurred on food, deceased
Sajan informed Ajay that he has to pay Rs.649/- whereas Satish
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
has to pay Rs.700/-. At this, Satish disputed the amount and
claimed that he will pay an equal amount as paid by Ajay. At this,
Sajan insisted that he will have to pay Rs.700/- only. Thereafter,
scuffle ensued between them at which Sajan slapped Satish
twice; when Ajay intervened, Sajan slapped him also; Satish
threatened Sajan that he will deal with him. At that time, one
Mohan and Vikram were also present there. Mohan took Ajay
along with him.
On the next morning at about 8:10 a.m., when Ajay
went back to his room, he found lot of persons gathered there and
dead body of Sajan lying there. There was injury on his neck;
blood was still on the bed and one axe was also lying nearby. On
making inquiry about Satish, he could not be found.
On this information, FIR was registered. During
investigation, efforts were made to arrest accused Satish but he
could not found. Proceedings u/s 82 CrPC were initiated against
him. Vide order dated 21.10.2000, accused Satish was declared
Proclaimed Offender. On 26.02.2026, supplementary chargesheet
was filed as per which, on 07.12.2025, information about arrest
of accused Satish Yadav by Crime Branch was received; he was
interrogated and formally arrested in the present case; his
disclosure statement was recorded; he disclosed that he had
destroyed the clothes worn by him after the incident.
The accused/applicant Satish Yadav had absconded
immediately after the incident; despite efforts, his whereabouts
could not be ascertained for the last about 25 years. Perusal of the
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
reports of NBWs issued against him clearly show that his father
in law Ganga Ram was aware that he is absconding as he has
committed a murder.
The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pardesh relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
is of no help to the accused as bail in the said case was granted
in its own set of circumstances.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence,
the chances of accused once again flee from justice cannot be
ruled out, I do not consider it to be fit case for grant of bail. The
bail application is accordingly dismissed.
Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
Copy of the order be sent to jail.
(Nishant Garg)
ASJ-06 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
06.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --