Raja Mitti Wala @ Satyendra Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.403 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 109, 352, 117(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, DistrictRaebareli.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It has been submitted that only general allegations have been levelled against the applicant and there is no role of firing.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant further submits that the co-accused Himanshu Sonkar, who was assigned similar role, has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2025 passed in Bail application No.11846 of 2025.

¶14

Another co-accused Shiva Sonkar has also been enlarged on bail vide order passed in Bail No.12159 of 2025. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co-accused.The applicant is in jail since 23.12.2025. The applicant has explained the criminal history of eight cases in paragraph 5 of the bail application.

¶15

BAIL No. 1056 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

It is lastly contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

Considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 23.12.2025; he has explained the criminal history of six cases in paragraph 5 of the bail application; and that he is entitled to parity with the bail order of co-accused noted above; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail on the ground of parity.

¶20

Let applicant Raja Mitti Wala @ Satyendra Sonkar be released on bail in the aforesaid F.I.R./case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶24

(iv) 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

¶25

BAIL No. 1056 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS.

¶28

(v) 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./84 B.N.S.S., may be issued and if 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 IPC/209 BNS.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶30

With above directions, the bail application is allowed, on the ground of parity.

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

February 26, 2026

¶33

R.C.

¶34

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raja Mitti Wala @ Satyendra Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Mitti Wala @ Satyendra Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Nawal Kishore Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Arpit Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 4 Others

Krishna Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Hari Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development, Lko. and 4 Others

Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Vocational Edu. and Skill Development Lko. and Another

Gulam Gausulwara vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko