Sonu Saini Alias Karan Saini vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9268 of 2025

Sonu Saini Alias Karan Saini		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Siddharth Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Vinit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶7

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 07 of 2025, under Sections 318(4) B.N.S. and Section 66D Information Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime Police Thana Kannauj, District Kannauj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶8

3 . It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that similarly placed coaccused Krishnakant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 9242 of 2025. It is further submitted that name of the applicants has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Aniket and said co-accused has been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is also submitted that the applicants are having no criminal history. It is further submitted that the applicants are having no criminal history. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case

¶9

NABAIL No. 9268 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicants have been assigned the role of getting the amount credited in the account of the co-accused Anikesh and Manoj.

¶13

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

¶14

6. In the present case chargesheet has already been submitted. The name of the applicants has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Aniket who has been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. similarly placed co-accused Krishnakant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 9242 of 2025.

¶15

7. 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.

¶16

8. 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.

¶17

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Sonu Saini Alias Karan Saini involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory

¶19

NABAIL No. 9268 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

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 :-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶23

(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;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

11. 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.

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

November 19, 2025

¶29

Abhishek

¶30

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

Sonu Saini Alias Karan Saini v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Saini Alias Karan Saini v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Similar cases

Chandraveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Viru Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pyare Miya vs State of U.P.

Jasveer Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others