Sunil vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45995 of 2025

Sunil

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 90

¶6

HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

The present third bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in case crime No. 309 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Soron, District Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 22.10.2021 and the second bail application of applicant was disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2024.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that the role of firing at the deceased persons has been assigned to five co-accused persons. There is no such allegation that applicant has caused any fire-arm injury. Regarding applicant and some of the co-accused persons, only general allegations have been made that they have assaulted the deceased and injured persons with lathis, sticks and rods. It was further submitted that deceased Bhupendra @ Rudra and Radha Charan @ Pappu have died of fire-arm injuries and that deceased

¶10

BAIL No. 45995 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

Prem Singh and Pramod have died due to non-fire-arm injuries sustained by them. Referring to statements of witnesses, it was submitted that no specific role was assigned to the applicant. Regarding same incident a cross-case was also lodged from the side of accused persons. In the said incident, co-accused Krishna Kumar and Satyadev have sustained injuries.

¶13

It is further submitted that the first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 22.10.2021 but trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and thus, trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time in its conclusion. Applicant is in judicial custody since 22.10.2020, having no criminal history, and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and argued that applicant is named in the first information report and that specific role was assigned to him. It was further submitted that in the incident four persons were murdered and two persons have sustained injuries. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case for bail is made out.

¶15

Perusal of record shows that in the alleged incident, four persons were murdered and two persons have sustained injuries. Applicant is named in the first information report. As per report of the trial court, 22 witnesses have already been examined before the trial court and it appears that prosecution evidence is at final stage.

¶16

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of the offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of bail is made out.

¶17

BAIL No. 45995 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

However, considering period of custody of applicant, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶20

With aforesaid observations the third bail application is rejected.

¶21

A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶22

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

¶23

April 15, 2026

¶24

Anand

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil v. State of U.P.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aatish Kesharwani vs State of U.P.

Shanker vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Chand Sharma @ Mahesh Chand and Another vs State of U.P.

Kishanpal Singh vs State of U.P.

Mansoor Ansari vs State of U.P.

Sageer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others