Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Sonu released on bail in Case Crime No. 574 of 2024, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses and of appearing before the trial court; trial court directed to fix sureties in light of Arvind Singh v. State of U.P.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sonu should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 574 of 2024, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC.

Court's answer

The arguments advanced by Ms. Ruchita Jain on behalf of the applicant could not be satisfactorily refuted from the record by counsel for the informant and the learned AGA, and entitle the applicant to grant of bail.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed, without making any observations on the merits of the case.

Key takeaways

The applicant-Sonu is to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.ratio¶20
Condition of bail: the applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.ratio¶21
Condition of bail: the applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed. Sonu, in jail since 09.07.2024 in Case Crime No. 574 of 2024, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC (bail earlier rejected by the trial court on 07.09.2024), was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court (Ajay Bhanot, J.) without any observations on the merits. The court recorded that the arguments of counsel for the applicant — consensual relations between the applicant and the victim; the F.I.R. being the result of that relationship going awry; no plighted word to marry given; no medical evidence corroborating rape; major inconsistencies in the victim's F.I.R. statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS; the F.I.R. being leveraged to force marriage; no criminal history; and no flight risk — could not be satisfactorily refuted from the record and entitled the applicant to bail. Release was ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses and of appearing before the trial court. The trial court was directed to fix sureties after due application of mind in light of Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) and to ensure that the right of bail is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions unrelated to the applicant's socioeconomic status. Decision date as printed: February 25, 2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37352 of 2024

Sonu	.....Ap	plicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.	...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Rakesh Ruchita J	Kumar Kumar ain	Dubey, Pandey,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 49

HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

By means of bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.574 of 2024 at Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 09.07.2024.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 07.09.2024.

The following arguments made by Ms. Ruchita Jain, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Jitendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

The applicant and the victim were intimate and had consensual relations.

The F.I.R. is the result of the aforesaid relationship going awry.

BAIL No. 37352 of 2024

2

The applicant never gave a plighted word to marry the victim.

There is no medical evidence to corroborate the commission of rape.

Major inconsistencies in the F.I.R. statements of the victim under Sections 180 BNSS and Section 183 BNSS discredit the prosecution case.

The F.I.R. is being leveraged to force applicant to marry the victim.

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Sonu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties

BAIL No. 37352 of 2024

3

after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

February 25, 2026

Ashish Tripathi

(Ajay Bhanot,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad