Allahabad High Court

RATAN SONKARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence and there is no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ratan Sonkar, who was charged under Sections 108 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. for allegedly recording and circulating an indecent video of his sister‑in‑law before her death, which the prosecution claimed led to her suicide. The applicant contended that the inquest witnesses had concluded the death was due to a train accident, no indecent video was recovered, and the FIR lacked the mens rea and proximate act required for the offences. The State could not rebut these points. The court found that the essential ingredients of the offences were not established, the applicant had no criminal history, and there was no likelihood of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, especially given the prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions. The decision relied on Supreme Court precedents that emphasize the need for clear evidence of intent and act before denying bail.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 108 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. in the absence of evidence of an indecent video and mens rea.
Whether the prosecution has established the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether there is a reasonable risk of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail.
Whether the length of pre‑trial detention justifies the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108, 351(3)

Subjects

bail
Section 108
Section 351(3)
false implication
inquest
indecent video
suicide
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24578 of 2025

Ratan Sonkar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghavendra Pati Tripathi, Vineet
Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Srivastava

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Case called out. Counsel for the informant is not present.

2. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K.
Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 108, 351(3)
B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Katra, District- Mirzapur during pendency of
the trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Prior to the lodging of the first information
report, the inquest proceedings were conducted at 12.30 p.m. The informant
was one of inquest witnesses. In the opinion of the inquest witnesses, the
sister-in-law of the informant died due to train accident. Subsequently, the
first information report was lodged and the allegations were levelled against
the applicant. The applicant has neither acted indecently with the victim nor
has transmitted/circulated or made viral any indecent video of the deceased.
No indecent video of the deceased has been recovered by the investigating
officer. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the
alleged video recording of the deceased prior to her death and the material
collected during the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients
to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out
against the applicant. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the
BAIL No. 24578 of 2025
2

commission of suicide by the deceased. The prosecution case, as it stands,
does not disclose the mens rea or proximate act required to attract the said
provision. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal
Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan
Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and other (Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025. The applicant is in jail
since 22.3.2025 having no criminal history. Investigation has been
completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case he is enlarged on bail,
he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that in the opinion of the inquest witnesses, the
sister-in-law of the informant died due to train accident. No indecent video
of the deceased has been recovered by the investigating officer. Further, as
per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged video recording
of the deceased prior to her death and the material collected during the
course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant.
There is no proximate or direct act attributable to the applicant that could
be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the
commission of suicide. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The
applicant has presently remained confined for more than one year one
month 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.

7. Let the applicant, Ratan Sonkar 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:
BAIL No. 24578 of 2025
3

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.

8. 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.)
May 5, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…