Allahabad High Court
KAPIL SONAKIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail to the applicant subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Kapil Sonakiya, who alleged that he was falsely implicated in a fraud case involving a sale deed and that he was not named in the FIR. The applicant asserted his innocence, lack of criminal history, and that the cheque for the consideration was deposited in his account but withdrawn by co‑accused, and he pledged cooperation with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, raising concerns about the seriousness of the offences (IPC sections 319, 318, 336, 338, 340) and potential for evidence tampering or flight. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s role, and the risk factors. Finding that the applicant satisfied the criteria for anticipatory bail, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond and specific conditions. The order directed that any breach of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC given the nature of the allegations and his alleged role in the fraud.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or otherwise misusing the liberty of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318, 319, 336, 338, 340
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- fraud
- bail conditions
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2326 of 2026
Kapil Sonakiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Umesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Radhey Shyam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime no.130 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3),
340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Garautha, District Jhansi, with the
prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information
report and the applicant is neither the vendor nor any witness of the
alleged sale deed which is said to have been executed fraudulently. It is
further submitted that co-accused Rohit Dubey has already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 passed in
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No.10079 of
2025. It is further submitted that the cheque for the consideration amount
was deposited in the bank account of the applicant and subsequently, the
said amount was withdrawn by other co-accused persons. It is further
submitted that the consideration amount has been credited to the bank
account of the applicant and he has distributed to the said amount between
all the accused persons, including himself. It is also submitted that the
applicant is having no criminal history. It was also submitted that
applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as
NABAIL No. 2326 of 2026
2
and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated
that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the
liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey
all conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail.
5. Applicant is not named in the first information report and the applicant
is neither the vendor nor any witness of the alleged sale deed which is
said to have been executed fraudulently. Co-accused Rohit Dubey has
already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
17.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s
482 BNSS No.10079 of 2025. It is further submitted that the cheque for
the consideration amount was deposited in the bank account of the
applicant and subsequently, the said amount was withdrawn by other co-
accused persons. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history.
6. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider
nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of
accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available
material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the
accused has also to be taken into consideration.
7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding
anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role
of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kapil Sonakiya involved in the
aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following
NABAIL No. 2326 of 2026
3
conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear
before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court
concerned;
(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer;
(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the
liberty of bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court concerned.
10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted
to the applicant.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 19, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…