Allahabad High Court
SUNNYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant Sunny.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunny, who was arrested on 14 February 2026 from a spa alleged to be involved in sex trade and charged under Section 143(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Sunny contended that he was falsely implicated and highlighted that a co‑accused, Guddu, had been granted bail in a related matter. The State opposed bail but could not dispute the similarity of Sunny’s case to Guddu’s. The Court noted that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is seven years, Sunny has no prior criminal record, and his circumstances mirror those of the co‑accused who was released on bail. Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application, directing Sunny to furnish a personal bond and two sureties and imposing standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act when the alleged offence carries a maximum sentence of seven years.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused (Guddu) influences the bail decision for the applicant.
- Whether the absence of prior criminal antecedents warrants bail despite the nature of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 143(3)
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act — s. 3, 4, 5
Subjects
- bail
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- Criminal Procedure
- co‑accused
- no prior convictions
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15163 of 2026
Sunny
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shlok Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. This bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking bail
in Case Crime No. 37 of 2026, under Sections 143(3) BNS and
SEction 3/4/5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, police station
Sector 49 NOIDA, district Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency
of the trial.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail
since 14.2.2026. He is said to have been arrested from a spa centre
where allegedly sex trade was being carried out. The applicant is said
to be the receptionist. He contended that the accused Guddu, who
was the manager of the spa centre, has been granted bail by this
Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11728 of 2026 by order
dated 16.4.2026. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail; however, he could
not dispute the fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar
footing to that of the co-accused, Guddu, who has been granted bail
by this Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence
alleged against the applicant is seven years. The applicant has no
BAIL No. 15163 of 2026
2
criminal antecedents. He is in jail since 14.2.2026. His case stands
on a similar footing to that of co-accused Guddu.
6. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I deem it
appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant Sunny be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; shall
not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; shall appear
before the trial court on each and every date fixed, unless personal
appearance is exempted.
2. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the pendency of
the trial; and shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court
concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
9. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are solely
for the purposes of deciding this bail application and shall not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
May 5, 2026
Sumaira
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUMAIRA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…