Sonveer Vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 682 of 2025, under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 12.09.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 23.10.2025. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant was arrested in the intervening night of 9/10.11.2025 along with four accused and has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of a knife has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confessional statement of the applicant, while in police custody, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-19 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the

¶14

BAIL No. 3935 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. The applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confessional statement while in police custody, at this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, 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- Sonveer, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶18

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶19

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶20

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶21