Allahabad High Court
SONU KHAN ALIAS SAMEER KHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu Khan (alias Sameer Khan) in a case registered under Section 105 B.N.S. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated, and that there was an inordinate delay in filing a Section 175(3) application, resulting in no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions. The Court observed that the applicant’s name only appeared in witness statements without any allegation of assault, that he has no criminal history, and that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. Consequently, the Court found no reasonable apprehension of tampering, intimidation, or trial delay and ordered the applicant to be released on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 105 B.N.S. in view of the lack of corroborative evidence and his non‑mention in the FIR.
- Whether the delay in moving the Section 175(3) application and the applicant’s alleged false implication affect the bail decision.
- Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing further delay if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 105, 175(3), 64, 65
Subjects
- bail
- Section 105 B.N.S.
- Section 175(3) BNSS
- FIR
- delay
- evidence
- witness intimidation
- criminal history
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10381 of 2026
Sonu Khan Alias Sameer Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Pratap Singh, Pushpendra Kumar
Yadav, Shreya Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 05 of 2026, under Section 105 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Kheta Sarai, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The incident is alleged to have occurred on 16.5.2025. The inquest
proceedings were conducted on the same day. The informant was one of the
inquest witnesses. In the opinion of the inquest witnesses, the daughter of the
informant died due to her bad health. As per the post-mortem report, the
deceased sustained two injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death
is due to haemorhhage shock as a result of ante-mortem head injury. An
application under Section 175(3) BNSS was filed before the competent court
on 9.6.2025. The first information report was lodged on 6.1.2026 under
Section 103(1) and 64 B.N.S. The inordinate delay in moving the application
under Section 175(3) BNSS is fatal to the prosecution case. During
investigation, sections 103(1), 65 BNS were deleted and the case was
converted under Section 105 BNS. The name of the applicant surfaced in the
statements of the witnesses namely, Irfan Ahmad and Jeenat. As per their
statements, no role of assault has been assigned to the applicant. The case of
the applicant is distinguishable from that of named accused Kaleem. At this
BAIL No. 10381 of 2026
2
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant is in jail since 12.2.2026 having no criminal history
and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. There is inordinate delay in moving the application under
Section 175(3) BNSS. The name of the applicant surfaced in the statements
of the witnesses namely, Irfan Ahmad and Jeenat. As per their statements, no
role of assault has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the
applicant has no criminal history and has remained confined for more than
seven months and after submission of the charge sheet 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 delay the trial 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.
6. Let the applicant Sonu Khan Alias Sameer Khan, 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 the court concerned
subject to the conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
September 30, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…