Allahabad High Court

RAJESH SONKARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The Court granted bail to the applicant on a prima‑facie basis, finding no sufficient ground to keep him detained.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajesh Sonkar, who was arrested in a case under Sections 8, 20, 27A, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and that the only reference to him was in a co‑accused’s confessional statement, which lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s alleged criminal history, including a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The Court held that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify continued detention and, on a prima‑facie basis, the applicant had satisfied the criteria for bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act when the FIR does not name him and the only incriminating reference is a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history, including a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act, warrants denial of bail.
Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused is admissible for the purpose of 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
criminal antecedents
confessional statement
evidentiary value
trial conditions
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29903 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. 178 out of 185)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

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. 110 of 2025, under Sections
8/20/27a/29/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station Babhani, 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
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
BAIL No. 29903 of 2026
2

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 applicant is not named in the FIR and that his 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…