Allahabad High Court
SANOJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Sanoj, accused in a murder case (Crime No. 374 of 2025) under IPC sections 103(1), 238(Ka), 3(5) BNS and Arms Act sections 4, 25, 27, 35. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the eyewitness statements were recorded three days after the incident, and that the police had not supplied grounds of arrest as required by the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Vihaan Kumar, Kapil Wadhawan, Maya Tiwari, and the Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) and noting jail overcrowding, the court held that the applicant is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and several conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence and further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be denied given the seriousness of the murder and arms offences alleged against the applicant.
- Whether the failure of the police to furnish grounds of arrest, as mandated by Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the delayed recording of eyewitness statements undermines the prosecution's case and justifies bail.
- How the Supreme Court's recent bail guidelines (Kapil Wadhawan, Maya Tiwari, Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) apply to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 35, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 238(Ka), 3(5) BNS
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- false implication
- procedural lapse
- Arms Act
- IPC
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
- overcrowded jails
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14046 of 2026
Sanoj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar Shukla, Mohit Singh, Ram
Kesh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Roshan Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2025, under Sections-
103(1), 238(Ka), 3(5) BNS and Sections-4/25/27/35 of Arms Act,
Police Station-Chandausi, District-Sambhal, during the pendency of
the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant
was not named in the FIR wherein the allegation has been made that
deceased left the house on 25.08.2025 at 8:00 am but did not return
and thereafter, on 26.08.2025 at 8:00 am, his body was found in an
open field. Subsequently, in the statement of the first informant, a
doubt was expressed upon the applicant on the ground that
applicant's sister was having relation with the deceased.
Subsequently, two witnesses, Rampal and Ramesh also came
forward and recorded the statement on 29.08.2025 mentioning
therein that they had seen the deceased in the company of the
applicant and the co-accused in the evening of 25.08.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has
been falsely implicated merely on the ground of apprehension and
doubt, even the statement of alleged eyewitness of last seen was
recorded after 3 days of the incident and recovery of body which itself
casts doubt over the prosecution story. It is further submitted that as
per the postmortem report, deceased received several incised
BAIL No. 14046 of 2026
2
wounds, though, blood stained knife has been recovered on pointing
out of the co-accused Govind and Vineet. Therefore, applicant has
been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that till the remand of
the applicant, ground of arrest has not been supplied by the police to
concerned Magistrate as required by the Apex Court in the case of
Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana And Another reported in
(2025) 5 SCC 799. Therefore, applicant is entitled to be released on
bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the
criminal history of six cases which are also petty in nature. It is further
submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present case,
therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The
applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since
30.10.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking
into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs.
State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant
of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I
am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Sanoj, involved in the aforementioned crime 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,
with the following conditions:-
i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
BAIL No. 14046 of 2026
3
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant
as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order
to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System
(BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
through Moradabad Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison
portal within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in
the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 685.
May 18, 2026
S.C.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM CHAURASIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…