Allahabad High Court

SONVEERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

Sonveer was arrested on 10‑11‑2025 in connection with a case (Crime No. 682 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 305, 331(4) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed on 23‑10‑2025, more than a month after the alleged incident, and the applicant’s name was omitted from it. The prosecution’s case rests solely on a confessional statement made while in police custody, with no independent witness or other corroborative evidence. The applicant argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of evidence render the prosecution’s case weak, and that his five‑month pre‑trial detention justifies release on bail. The court agreed, finding no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay, and therefore ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and standard conditions. The bail order was issued on 5 May 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of the applicant’s name in it warrant the grant of bail.
Whether the lack of corroborative evidence and reliance solely on a confessional statement justify bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or causing further trial delay.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 305, 317(2), 331(4)

Subjects

bail
FIR delay
confessional statement
pre‑trial detention
Indian Penal Code
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3935 of 2026

Sonveer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajit Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Niraj Kumar Tiwari,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 682 of 2025, under Sections 305,
331(4), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh during the
pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 12.09.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on
23.10.2025. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is
fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant was arrested in the intervening
night of 9/10.11.2025 along with four accused and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. False recovery of a knife has been shown
from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
Except the confessional statement of the applicant, while in police custody,
there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-19 of the
affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025 and if he is released on
bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
BAIL No. 3935 of 2026
2

record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been
lodged belatedly. The applicant was not named in the first information
report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the
confessional statement while in police custody, at this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the
applicant has remained confined for more than five months and after
submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
and 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant- Sonveer, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that
he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

May 5, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…