Allahabad High Court
SONU @ KALIM @ ENAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu @ Kalim @ Ena, who is charged under Section 109(1) of the B.N.S., Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, and Sections 3, 25 and 28 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at police and possessing a pistol, cartridges and cow meat. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that no police officer was injured, that he himself sustained a leg injury, and that there was no independent witness to the alleged recovery of the weapons and meat. The State opposed bail but could not refute the claim that the co‑accused Daood had already been released on bail, establishing parity. The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for more than three months, there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and no independent witness existed to substantiate the recovery. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions prohibiting tampering, pressurising witnesses and mandating appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges under the Cow Slaughter Act and Arms Act
- Whether the lack of an independent witness to the alleged recovery justifies bail
- Whether the grant of bail to the co‑accused Daood creates a right of parity for the applicant
- Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 28, 3
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1)
- Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5, 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- evidence tampering
- co‑accused parity
- arms act
- cow slaughter act
- independent witness
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11843 of 2026
Sonu @ Kalim @ Ena
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Haya Rizvi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2026, under Section 109(1)
B.N.S., and Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 3/25/28 Arms Act,
Police Station- Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffarnagar during pendency of the
trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is a case of firing on the police party. No
police personnel has received any injury. In fact, the applicant has received
injury on his right leg. False recovery of two country made pistol, two live
cartridges and 18 kg. cow meat has been shown from the joint possession of
the applicant and co-accused Daood. There is no independent witness to the
alleged recovery. It is next contended that the co-accused Daood has been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 7291 of 2026 (Daood vs. State of U.P.). The
applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in para 12 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since
6.1.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 11843 of 2026
2
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. The co-accused Daood has been granted bail by this Court. Further
the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three months
and 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 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 @ Kalim @ Ena involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
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.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 20, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…