Rajesh Sonkar v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29903 of 2026 Court No. - 68 (Sl. No. 178 out of 185) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Jainendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/27a/29/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the confessional statement of the co-accused person, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in all, two cases were foisted on the applicant by police at a go, just to show good work. One case under U.P. Gangsters Act has also been foisted on him. The said criminal history stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since

18.7.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jainendra Kumar Pandey, Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajesh Sonkar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) disputed.

¶7This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out, an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history assigned to the applicant has been properly explained.

¶8Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and that his has come up in the confessional statement of the co-accused person, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9Let the applicant-Rajesh Sonkar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶11It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 8, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 29903 of 2026 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad