Ratan Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24578 of 2025

¶3

Ratan Sonkar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Raghavendra Kumar Singh	Pati	Tripathi, Vineet
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Santosh	Kumar	Srivastava

¶6

Court No. - 64

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶8

Case called out. Counsel for the informant is not present.

¶9

Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 108, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Katra, District- Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Prior to the lodging of the first information report, the inquest proceedings were conducted at 12.30 p.m. The informant was one of inquest witnesses. In the opinion of the inquest witnesses, the sister-in-law of the informant died due to train accident. Subsequently, the first information report was lodged and the allegations were levelled against the applicant. The applicant has neither acted indecently with the victim nor has transmitted/circulated or made viral any indecent video of the deceased. No indecent video of the deceased has been recovered by the investigating officer. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged video recording of the deceased prior to her death and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the

¶12

BAIL No. 24578 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

commission of suicide by the deceased. The prosecution case, as it stands, does not disclose the mens rea or proximate act required to attract the said provision. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025 . The applicant is in jail since 22.3.2025 having no criminal history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶15

Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶16

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that in the opinion of the inquest witnesses, the sister-in-law of the informant died due to train accident. No indecent video of the deceased has been recovered by the investigating officer. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged video recording of the deceased prior to her death and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. There is no proximate or direct act attributable to the applicant that could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has presently remained confined for more than one year one month and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant, Ratan Sonkar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶18

BAIL No. 24578 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶22

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶23