Sonu Alias Yogesh vs State of U.P.

Heard Shri Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, Advocate holding brief of Shri Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.175 of 2024, under Sections 323, 342, 364, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Koshi Kalan, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Narendra Alias Lalu has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18510 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.5.2025. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused have not been disputed by him.

¶13

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by

¶15

BAIL No. 22559 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶18

Let the applicant- Sonu Alias Yogesh involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶24

October 6, 2025

¶25

Vikas Verma

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Alias Yogesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Alias Yogesh v. State of U.P.

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

Javed Akhtar vs State of U.P.

Guddu Raja vs State of U.P.

Roshan Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Fariyad Ali Alias Riyaz vs State of U.P.

Shadab vs State of U.P.

Ram Lotan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others