Allahabad High Court
RAJESH SONKARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was granted as the applicant made out a prima facie case for release despite the pending NDPS charges.
Summary
The applicant, Rajesh Sonkar, sought bail in a NDPS case (Crime No. 89 of 2025) alleging innocence and that his name appeared only in a co‑accused's confessional statement, which lacks evidentiary value. He argued that he was falsely implicated, that the police had lodged multiple cases against him to show performance, and that his prior criminal history was explained. The State opposed bail, but the court held that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify continued detention when bail criteria are otherwise satisfied. Considering the lack of substantive evidence and the explained history, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case where the accused's name appears only in a co‑accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the accused's prior criminal history precludes bail.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused has evidentiary value for bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 27A, 29, 60, 8
- U.P. Gangsters Act
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedents
- surety
- trial court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29900 of 2026
Rajesh Sonkar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jainendra Kumar Pandey, Vipin
Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 177 out of 185)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri
Jainendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Sections
8/20/27a/29/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station Myorpur, 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. He is
not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the confessional statement
of the co-accused person, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in all, two cases
were foisted on the applicant by police at a go, just to show good work. One
case under U.P. Gangsters Act has also been foisted on him. The said
criminal history stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since
18.7.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
BAIL No. 29900 of 2026
2
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
7. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out,
an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history assigned to the
applicant has been properly explained.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that name of applicant has come up in the confessional
statement of the co-accused person, which has no evidentiary value in the
eyes of law 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.
9. Let the applicant- Rajesh Sonkar, who is involved in aforementioned
case 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
subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper
with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court
as required.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…