Allahabad High Court
SHIVAM SONKARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Shivam Sonkar, accused of offences under IPC sections 323 and 376 and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4, had been in custody since June 15, 2024. His first bail application was rejected on February 24, 2026. He filed a second bail application arguing that only four witnesses had been examined, there was no risk of evidence tampering, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, causing undue incarceration. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the facts. The Court, considering the nature of the offences, the lack of tampering risk, jail overcrowding, pendency of cases, and Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v CBI, Maya Tiwari v State of U.P., and the Suo Motu bail policy), granted bail with standard conditions. The order directed verification of identities, prompt release through the Bail Order Management System, and expedited trial within a year.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of serious offences (IPC 323, 376 and POCSO 3/4) given the risk of evidence tampering.
- Whether the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention is justified in view of trial delays and jail overcrowding.
- Whether the applicant meets the criteria for bail under prevailing Supreme Court guidelines.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- IPC 323
- IPC 376
- POCSO Act
- pre‑trial detention
- evidence tampering
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32498 of 2026
Shivam Sonkar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 376
IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Saini, District
Kaushambi, during the pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is the
second bail application on behalf of the applicant and his first bail
application was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated
24.2.2026. It is further submitted that till date only four witnesses
including the victim have already been examined and there is no chance
of tampering the evidence. It is further submitted that trial is not likely to
be concluded in near future and the applicant has been languishing in jail
since 15.6.2024. It is lastly submitted that in case the applicant is granted
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant and his
first bail application was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated
24.2.2026. It is submitted that till date only four witnesses including the
BAIL No. 32498 of 2026
2
victim have already been examined and there is no chance of tampering
the evidence and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The
applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.6.2024.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court
in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant- Shivam Sonkar involved in the aforementioned
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,
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 cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
BAIL No. 32498 of 2026
3
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well
as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24
hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4
of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
13. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the
case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year
and the applicant is directed to cooperate in the trial.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 30, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…