Allahabad High Court
SOHANVIRversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the accused Sohanvir, who was also charged under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant claimed false implication, highlighted that he was already on bail in other related cases, and pointed to the bail already granted to co‑accused. The State opposed the bail, but the court examined the totality of facts, the nature of the evidence, and the provisions of Section 19(4) of the GAA Act. Without expressing any view on the merits, the court found the case fit for bail and ordered release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to several conditions. The order clarified that it does not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act.
- Whether the provisions of Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s prior bail in other cases and the bail granted to co‑accused affect the decision on this bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 19(4), 2, 3
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act
- surety
- false implication
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30881 of 2025
Sohanvir
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Tej Kulshrestha, Vinay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Atul Tej Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Dutt
Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
3. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2025 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial
Activities (Prevention) Act, registered at P.S. Bhaura Kalan, District Muzaffar Nagar
during pendency of the trial.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 03.5.2024. It is
further submitted that applicant is on bail in the solitary case shown against him in the
gang chart and apart from the above, he is also on bail in two other cases lodged
against him. It is further submitted that co-accused Ankur and Smt. Mukesh have
already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated
23.6.2025 and 20.6.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 19945 of 2025
and 19876 of 2025 respectively. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes
that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the
wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early
conclusion of trial.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.
6. Applicant is on bail in the solitary case shown against him in the gang chart and
apart from the above, he is also on bail in two other cases lodged against him. Co-
accused Ankur and Smt. Mukesh have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.
BAIL No. 30881 of 2025
2
7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record
and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant Sohanvir involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial
court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression
on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
this order.
April 23, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…