State of U.P v. Soni

: Satya Prakash, Sunil Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 50 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. By means of the second bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in S.T.No.1777 of 2024 (State of U.P. v. Soni @ Sonu) arising out of Case Crime No.116 of 2024 at Police Station-Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302/34, 307, 323 and 120B IPC. The applicant is in jail since 09.05.2024. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 06.02.2025. The following arguments made by Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor did he influence any witness.

2. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the progress of the trial in any manner.

3. All the prosecution witnesses have testified before the learned trial court and the prosecution evidences have concluded. Eight 2 BAIL No. 25317 of 2025 witnesses of fact including the four injured witnesses have repudiated the prosecution case in their testimonies before the learned trial court. The said witnesses have been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution.

4. The applicant was falsely implicated as is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who have been declared hostile. The aforesaid fact shows that a false case was set up against the applicant and to further prove his innocence he may be required to produce some defence witness and defence evidence. The applicant has to gather evidence to establish his defence particularly in the new light of exculpatory evidences after the deposition of the hostile prosecution witnesses. The applicant is a poor person who needs to collect resources for defence purposes also.

5. Continued imprisonment of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to absolve himself of the charges. Denial of an opportunity to the applicant to collect and adduce the evidence before the learned trial court will be contrary to the norms of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held: "Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his 3 BAIL No. 25317 of 2025 innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While doing so all relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard." Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused persons namely, Lakhpat, Arjun Kumar and Amandeep @ Aman who have been granted bail by this Court on 02.04.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31463 of 2024.

6. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

7. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Sanjai be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. 4 BAIL No. 25317 of 2025 The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. In case the applicant does not cooperate in the process of trial or adopts dilatory tactics or threatens witnesses or violates any bail condition, the learned trial court shall record its finding to that effect and cancel the bail of the applicant without recourse to this Court. September 22, 2025 Ashish Tripathi (Ajay Bhanot,J.)

: Satya Prakash, Sunil Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 50 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. By means of the second bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in S.T.No.1777 of 2024 (State of U.P. v. Soni @ Sonu) arising out of Case Crime No.116 of 2024 at Police Station-Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302/34, 307, 323 and 120B IPC. The applicant is in jail since 09.05.2024. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 06.02.2025. The following arguments made by Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor did he influence any witness.

2. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the progress of the trial in any manner.

3. All the prosecution witnesses have testified before the learned trial court and the prosecution evidences have concluded. Eight 2 BAIL No. 25317 of 2025 witnesses of fact including the four injured witnesses have repudiated the prosecution case in their testimonies before the learned trial court. The said witnesses have been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution.

4. The applicant was falsely implicated as is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who have been declared hostile. The aforesaid fact shows that a false case was set up against the applicant and to further prove his innocence he may be required to produce some defence witness and defence evidence. The applicant has to gather evidence to establish his defence particularly in the new light of exculpatory evidences after the deposition of the hostile prosecution witnesses. The applicant is a poor person who needs to collect resources for defence purposes also.

5. Continued imprisonment of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to absolve himself of the charges. Denial of an opportunity to the applicant to collect and adduce the evidence before the learned trial court will be contrary to the norms of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held: "Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his 3 BAIL No. 25317 of 2025 innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While doing so all relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard." Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused persons namely, Lakhpat, Arjun Kumar and Amandeep @ Aman who have been granted bail by this Court on 02.04.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31463 of 2024.

6. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

7. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Sanjai be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. 4 BAIL No. 25317 of 2025 The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. In case the applicant does not cooperate in the process of trial or adopts dilatory tactics or threatens witnesses or violates any bail condition, the learned trial court shall record its finding to that effect and cancel the bail of the applicant without recourse to this Court. September 22, 2025 Ashish Tripathi (Ajay Bhanot,J.)