Kallu Soni Alias Neeraj Kumar Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6744 of 2025

Kallu Soni Alias Neeraj Kumar Soni

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Shaloo Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 72

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

¶8

2. Heard Ms. Shaloo Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

3. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2025, under Sections 121(1), 132, 351(2), 308(5), 191(2) B.N.S. and Section 7 of Public Property Damage Prevention Act, 1984, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is submitted that similarly placed co-accused Ganga Soni has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court whereas Aditya Soni has been granted bail by the Sessions Court. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. It is also submitted that as per the FIR allegation against the applicant is that he along with other coaccused person indulged in illegal extortion of money in an illegal and unauthorized way from the persons for parking their vehicles in parking stand. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during

¶11

NABAIL No. 6744 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶14

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

¶15

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

7. Similarly placed co-accused Ganga Soni has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court whereas Aditya Soni has been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶17

8. 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, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶18

9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶19

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶20

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kallu Soni @ Neeraj Kumar Soni 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 :-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear

¶22

NABAIL No. 6744 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶25

(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;

¶26

(iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶28

12. 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 herein.

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

November 3, 2025

¶31

Abhishek

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kallu Soni Alias Neeraj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu Soni Alias Neeraj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt Saroj and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Radhika Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya @ Vikas Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Arif Alias Arif and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishi Ram Yadav and Another vs State of Up and Another