Sonu Alias Mahesh vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7859 of 2025

Sonu Alias Mahesh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite

¶8

Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s):Anwar Hussain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 71

¶10

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Sonu @ Mahesh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2024, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶13

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant that applicant is innocent and he has
apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case,
whereas there is no credible evidence against him.
Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It
is also submitted that during investigation a notice
under Section 41-A CrPC was given by the I.O. to the
present applicant and now after completion of
investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the
matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been
issued against the applicant and the applicant has not
been declared absconder. The applicant has not misused
the said liberty provided during investigation. Applicant
has no criminal history to his credit. In case applicant
is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶14

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory
bail.

¶15

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the

¶16

NABAIL No. 7859 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

6. In this matter, from the perusal of the record it
reveals that applicant was cooperative during
investigation. Notice under Section 41-A CrPC was given
to him. Alleged offence is punishable with the
imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. No
custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

¶20

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has settled the law on the subject finally by
holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited
duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue
upto conclusion of trial.

¶21

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail
granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the
accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till
end of trial.

¶22

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
while considering an application for grant of
anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature
of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering
with evidence including intimidating witnesses,

¶23

likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the
country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought
to be generally guided by considerations such as the
nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed
to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while
considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse
it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶24

8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding
anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of
applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of
the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory
bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶25

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶26

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be

¶27

NABAIL No. 7859 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

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:-

¶30

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the
Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will
cooperate in the trial.

¶31

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police office.

¶32

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court and if he has passport,
the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P.
Concerned.

¶33

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the
same may be a ground for cancellation of protection
granted to the applicant.

¶34

November 25, 2025
safi

¶35

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Alias Mahesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Alias Mahesh 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

Nadeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhurav Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Ashish Singh Alias Ashish Bhai vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. through District Magistrate and 2 Others

Smt. Akta and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anju Sharma @ Anju Pandey vs State of Up and Another