Sonu Urf Jaganlal and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9819 of 2025

¶3

Sonu Urf Jaganlal And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Eishan Mehta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 71

¶7

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Sonu @ Jaganlal and Shishupal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 738 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 105, 115(2), 352, 126(2), 110, 140 of BNS, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is also submitted that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R. and their names came into light during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Nirdosh. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicants. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation regarding delay. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit. The investigation against the applicants is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

NABAIL No. 9819 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

It appears that investigation against the applicants is going on and they are cooperating with the I.O. It also appears that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R. and their names came into light during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Nirdosh. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicants in commission of the alleged crime.

¶16

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, 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.

¶17

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶18

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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 applicants till filing of police report under Section 193 (3) of BNSS before the Competent Court.

¶19

NABAIL No. 9819 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions :-

¶23

The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶24

The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶27

The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of applicants in accordance with law.

¶29

November 26, 2025 safi

¶30

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶31

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

Sonu Urf Jaganlal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Urf Jaganlal and Another 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

Dipti Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Villo Alias Shahnaz Bano vs State of U.P.

Lakhan Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Raghav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash vs State of U.P,.

Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another