Allahabad High Court
SONU KUMAR KESHARIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail and granted it.
Summary
The applicant, Sonu Kumar Keshari, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 481 of 2025) under Sections 333, 64(1) and 351(3) of the IPC. He claimed innocence, alleging that the FIR was lodged eight months after the incident and that a civil dispute had been converted into a criminal case, suggesting false implication. The State opposed the bail but did not refute the applicant's contentions. The court, noting the delay in filing the FIR and the civil nature of the dispute, found a prima facie case for bail without addressing the merits of the charges. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under Sections 333, 64(1) and 351(3) of the IPC considering the delay in filing the FIR and alleged false implication.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3), 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- civil dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15401 of 2026
Sonu Kumar Keshari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prateek Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.62 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Prateek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.481 of 2025, under Sections 333,
64(1), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra, during the
pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
F.I.R. is delayed by about 8 months, and there is no explanation for the said
delay. A matter of civil dispute has been converted into a criminal one by the
informant. Even after the initiation of the incident, the husband of the victim
had mortgaged a piece of land to the father of the applicant, which indicates
it to be a case of false implication. The victim is a married lady and
obviously is a major. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 31.03.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse
the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
BAIL No. 15401 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR and the fact that a matter
of civil dispute has been converted into a criminal one by the informant, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Sonu Kumar Keshari, be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he
shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…