Allahabad High Court

SONUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The bail application was allowed, granting bail to the accused with conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu, accused in a case under Sections 309(6), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S., relating to alleged assault and theft of a mobile phone. The applicant’s counsel argued that the FIR did not name him, that the IMEI number of the recovered phone differed from the looted phone, and that no independent witness linked him to the crime, contending his innocence. The State opposed the bail but could not refute these factual contentions. The Court examined the seriousness of the charges, the risk of evidence tampering, and the applicant’s prior criminal cases, concluding that a prima facie case existed but bail was appropriate. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering, intimidation, further criminal activity, and mandating regular court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences under the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S.
Whether the discrepancy in IMEI numbers and lack of direct naming in the FIR negate the prima facie case against the applicant
Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. — s. 309(6), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
false implication
evidence tampering
mobile phone IMEI
criminal antecedents
Uttar Pradesh B.N.S.
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12671 of 2026

Sonu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyanendra Prasad Mahant
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Prakash Rai,
learned State Law Officer for the State-Respondent and perused the
record.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant
seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2026, under
Sections 309(6), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5) of the B.N.S., Police
Station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant
is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case crime
number. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the
FIR has been registered against one unknown person and the
applicant is not named in the FIR. He submits that the name of the
applicant was surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-
accused. He submits that from the victim one Mobile Phone being
OPPO A5X 4G (4/64), IMEI 861026082406896 was also looted at the
time of incident. He submits that the Police has shown recovery of
one Mobile Phone A5X, 5G Midnight Blue, IMEI No.
8610260824068896 and 861026082406888, from the possession of
the applicant. He submits that the IMEI Number of looted mobile
number and recovered from the possession of the applicant are
different, which falsify the involvement of the applicant. He submits
that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. He
BAIL No. 12671 of 2026
2

submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed on
09.03.2026, as such the applicant is not required for any custodial
interrogation. He submits that no specific role and motive has been
assigned to the applicant in the present case. He submits that the
role of assaulting the victim has been assigned to other co-accused
Veer @ Kallu @ Ballu. The applicant is languishing in jail since
08.01.2026. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents
of five other cases to his credit which has been explained in the
affidavit filed in support of the bail application as well as in the
supplementary affidavit. He submits that there is no likelihood of his
fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of
release on bail. Hence, the bail has been prayed for.

Learned counsel for the AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not
dispute the aforesaid fact raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of
accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and
nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering
with the witness and prima-facie case, but without commenting on
merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Sonu, involved in above mentioned case
crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond
and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by
the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through
counsel by the court concerned.
BAIL No. 12671 of 2026
3

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court
below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

May 7, 2026
pks

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…