Santosh Sonkar vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

Santosh Sonkar vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Santosh Sonkar to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail, and the observations shall not affect the trial on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Santosh Sonkar is entitled to bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial, on the ground of parity with co-accused Chandrajeet Shukla @ Golu despite his criminal history of six cases.

Court's answer

The Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application on the ground of parity with the co-accused, considering the facts and circumstances and the judgments in Nanha, Paras Ram Vishnoi and Satender Kumar Antil.

Ratio / Principle

The factual basis of parity with the co-accused was not disputed by the State, notwithstanding vehement opposition to the bail prayer.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — grant of — offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur (Case Crime No.120 of 2023) — applicant in custody since 8.8.2023 — bail sought on ground of parity with similarly placed co-accused Chandrajeet Shukla @ Golu, already granted bail by the High Court on 19.7.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48061 of 2023 — parity not disputed by the State — criminal history of six cases stands explained (on bail in five; one under the Gangsters Act pending application) — pendency of criminal cases by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail (Prabhakar Tewari; Nanha; Paras Ram Vishnoi; Satender Kumar Antil relied on) — bail application allowed; release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and to appear before the trial court; breach entails cancellation; observations not to affect trial on merits. (Krishan Pahal, J.; decided March 19, 2026)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9453 of 2026

Santosh Sonkar

	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pranshu Dwivedi	Dwivedi,	Ram Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 66

(Sr. No.23 out of 116)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard Sri R.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

Learned counsel submits that similarly placed co-accused, Chandrajeet Shukla @ Golu, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.7.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48061 of 2023, hence, the applicant, having an identical role is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The criminal history of six cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as he is on bail in five cases and he has yet to apply for bail in one case under the Gangsters Act. He is in jail since 8.8.2023 and will not misuse the liberty of bail.

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

BAIL No. 9453 of 2026

2

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

Let the applicant- Santosh Sonkar , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

March 19, 2026

Vikas Verma

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