Sobran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.122 of 2025 under Sections 132, 121(1), 352, 351(3), 303(2) BNS, Section 4/10 Forest Protection Act, Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Murtiha, District Bahraich.

¶11

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the allegations in the prosecution case are false. There is no independent witness of the incident and no recovery has been effected. The offence is triable by the Magistrate. The applicant has explained the criminal history of sixteen cases in paragraph 10 of the bail application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 12.07.2025.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶15

BAIL No. 12848 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶18

On due consideration of the facts that the applicant is in jail since 12.07.2025, the offence is triable by the Magistrate, prima facie there appears to be no recovery of wooden logs from the applicant, and the applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 10 to the bail application, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Sobran , involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶23

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶24

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶26

January 5, 2026 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶27

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sobran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Pankaj Sharma and 24 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Deptt. and 4 Others

Mohd. Kasim Ali Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Anoop Kesarwani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Lal Ji Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Vivek Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Smt. Sunita and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Bapu Bhawan Lko. and 5 Others