Sonu @ Sikera vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31094

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4610 of 2025

Applicant :- Sonu @ Sikera Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhaker Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.39 of 2022, under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S.-Alambagh, District Lucknow.

¶9

As per contents of F.I.R. which has been lodged against an unidentified person, a police vehicle bearing registration no. UP21CB0008 (Innova Crysta) was reported stolen.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that the FIR has been lodged against unidentified persons and subsequently during the course of investigation, Section 411 has been dropped. It is submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence against applicant, who is under incarceration since 05.10.2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the said fact.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, perusal of material available on record and prima facie subject to further evidence being led during trial, it appears that FIR has been lodged against unidentified persons and during the course of investigation, Section 411 IPC has been dropped against the applicant. At present, there does not appear to be any direct evidence regarding complicity of applicant in allegation levelled. The previous criminal history of

¶13

five cases has already been explained while he is under incarceration since 05.10.2024.

¶14

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶15

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant, Sonu @ Sikera involved in the aforesaid case crime 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:-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(ii) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Renu/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sonu @ Sikera v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Sikera v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. 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

Similar cases

Shiv Autar Sharma and 10 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Paramveer Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Subedar Rao vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gautam Kahar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Karan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lko and Another