Allahabad High Court

SONU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that mere reliance on the applicant’s past criminal record cannot be a ground to deny bail and, in the absence of incriminating evidence beyond the co‑accused’s statement, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicant, Sonu Yadav, was arrested in connection with a robbery case (Crime No. 208 of 2024) based primarily on the confessional statement of a co-accused, with no other incriminating material recovered from his possession. He has a past criminal record of 28 cases, most of which were concluded before 2015 and for which he was on bail. The applicant sought bail after being detained for more than one and a half years, arguing that his prior record should not alone justify denial of bail. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the factual submissions regarding the lack of direct evidence against the applicant. The court observed that reliance solely on the applicant’s criminal history is improper and, given the absence of substantive evidence beyond the co-accused’s statement, the applicant is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether an applicant’s extensive prior criminal record can be a ground to deny bail in the absence of direct evidence.
Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused alone suffices to justify continued pre‑trial detention.
Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention of over one and a half years warrants the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 309(4), 317(2)

Subjects

bail
criminal history
robbery
pre‑trial detention
co‑accused statement
Indian Penal Code
Section 309
Section 317

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5120 of 2026

Sonu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Reetika

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. None appeared on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.

2. Heard Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B.
Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 309(4),
317(2) BNS, Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya, during pendency
of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was
lodged against three unknown persons with regard to robbery and during
investigation through the statement of co-accused applicant has been
made accused in the present matter.

5. He next submits, except the statement of co-accused there is no
evidence against the applicant.

6. He next submits, actually, applicant was having previous criminal
history of 28 other cases therefore, in this case also police implicated him
during investigation.

7. He next submits, entire criminal history of the applicant has been
explained and it appears, majority of the cases were up to the year 2015
and in all the cases applicant is on bail.
BAIL No. 5120 of 2026
2

8. He further submits, considering the facts of the case, it is not proper to
withhold the instant bail application of the applicant merely on the basis
of his criminal history.

9. He further argued, even in the present matter applicant is in jail since
29.10.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half year.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.

12. However, as per allegation, applicant involved in the alleged offence
of robbery but it appears, he was made accused in the present matter on
the basis of confessional statement of co-accused recorded before the
police and it appears, nothing incriminating could be recovered from his
possession.

13. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of 28 other cases but entire criminal history of the
applicant has been explained and majority of the cases were up to the
year 2015 and in all the cases applicant is on bail. Considering the
criminal history of the applicant argument advanced by learned counsel
for the applicant that during investigation due to the previous criminal
history, application has been made accused in the present matter cannot
be ruled out.

14. Further, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by
learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of criminal
history of the applicant, it is not proper to withhold the bail application of
the applicant.

15. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since October, 2024
i.e. for last more than one and half years.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
BAIL No. 5120 of 2026
3

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Sonu Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 5, 2026
S.A.

Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…