Allahabad High Court
SONUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was rejected as it was found devoid of merit.
Summary
The applicant, Sonu, filed a bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9428 of 2026) in the High Court of Allahabad seeking release on bail in Crime No. 549 of 2025, which is registered under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Phase-2, Noida. The sole accused contended that the FIR was prompt and there were no extraordinary circumstances justifying denial of bail. The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, observed that despite the prompt FIR, the case did not merit the grant of bail and found the application devoid of merit. Consequently, the bail plea was rejected, but the Court directed that the trial be expedited in line with Supreme Court precedents. The observations were confined to the bail application and were not to affect the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the sole accused under Section 103(1) B.N.S. during the pendency of trial despite a prompt FIR.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 103(1) B.N.S.
- prompt FIR
- sole accused
- expeditious trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9428 of 2026
Sonu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shakti Dubey, Vinay Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.19 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.549 of 2025, under
Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Phase-2 Noida, District
Gautambuddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that the FIR is prompt and that the
applicant is the sole named accused therein, I do not find it a fit
case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is
found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
5. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before
the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in
view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent
judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs.
State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another
vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.
BAIL No. 9428 of 2026
2
6. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…