Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6598 of 2025

¶3

Sonu Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vimal Kishor Singh, Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Order on C.M Application No. I.A/04/2025

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant prays that the short term bail application may be dismissed as not pressed.

¶10

As prayed, short term bail application is dismissed as not pressed.

¶11

Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6598 of 2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, alongwith coaccused persons, while hatching a criminal conspiracy and impersonating Yogita Devi Verma, have got executed her sale deed by committing forgery.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither the seller nor the purchaser in the sale deed and he has falsely been implicated in this present case on the basis of his confessional statement as well as of the co-accused persons, in police custody. The only role assigned to the applicant is of hatching the conspiracy. The chargesheet in the case has been filed.

¶14

It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of two cases which has been explained by him in the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 21.05.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

BAIL No. 6598 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history of two cases in the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 21.05.2025; the offences are triable by a Magistrate; charge-sheet in the case has been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Sonu Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 99 of 2025 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(2) 340(2), 324(2), 351(2), 61(2) B.N.S, P.S. Bijnaur, District Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(iii) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶26

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶27

October 14, 2025 DiVYa

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sonu Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nankau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Ajay Kumar Mishra @ Atul Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Poonam @ Poonam Kapoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin.Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Virendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Ankit Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Riyaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.