Allahabad High Court
SONU @ NAVNEETversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Sonu @ Navneet in a case involving multiple IPC offences. The applicant's first bail plea had been rejected, but co‑accused Vinod and Kapoor Singh were later released on bail, leading the applicant to argue that his case was on par with theirs. The court noted the applicant's criminal history involved only minor offences and that he had been in custody for about one and a half years. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant's factual submissions. Weighing the circumstances, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying criminal charges.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite a prior denial of bail
- Whether the release of co‑accused on bail creates a presumption of parity for the applicant
- Whether the applicant's minor prior offences and length of pre‑trial detention justify bail
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the trial process
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- pre‑trial detention
- co‑accused parity
- Indian Penal Code
- Uttar Pradesh High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6747 of 2026
Sonu @ Navneet
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devendra Kumar Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant.
2. Heard Sri Balram Gupta, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri D.K.
Misra, 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. 189 of 2024, under Sections 191(3), 191(2), 190,
103(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Saarh, District Kanpur Nagar
during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, this is second bail
application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the
applicant was dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2025 but it is a case in which
applicant along with four others on the basis of general allegation has been
made accused and after rejection of first bail application of the applicant co-
accused Vinod has been released on bail on the ground that co-accused
Kapoor Singh @ Raj has already been released on bail and case of applicant
is at par with them.
5. He further submits, bail order of co-accused Vinod has been annexed at
page-95 of the paper-book. He further submits, apart from the present case
applicant is having criminal history of two cases but both the cases relate to
minor offence and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.11.2024 i.e. for
almost one and half years.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
BAIL No. 6747 of 2026
2
the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
8. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and
first bail application of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated
08.05.2025 but it reflects, after rejection of first bail application of the
applicant co-accused Vinod and Kapoor Singh @ Raj have been released on
bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and considering the fact that only
general allegation has been made against all the accused it appears, case of
applicant is at par with them.
9. Further, applicant is having criminal history of two cases but both the
cases relate to minor offences and in the present matter he is in jail since
15.11.2024 i.e. for almost one and half years.
10. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant - Sonu @ Navneet 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.
13. 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.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
BAIL No. 6747 of 2026
3
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.
March 18, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…