Allahabad High Court
Santosh Soni Alias Raj Bahadur Soni ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209114
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37949 of 2023
Santosh Soni Alias Raj Bahadur Soni Alias Dhakad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Aanjaneya Dwivedi, Aditya Narayan Shukla, Swati Agrawal Srivastava, Upendra Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Rahul Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.
3. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case No. RC 08(S) /2019/CBI/SCB/Lucknow (CBI/SCB Lucknow vs. Santosh Soni and others), FIR Number: RC0532019S0008, under Section 120B, 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Enforcement Agency: CBI, SCB, Lucknow.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, vide order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49732 of 2022 but as His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has been transferred from this Court and this Court is dealing with the matter of CBI, therefore, instant second bail application is listed today before this Bench.
5. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.08.2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.
6. He further submits that considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a detailed fresh report was called from the court concerned about current status of the trial and from perusal of the report of the court concerned, it reflects till 03.10.2025 only 15 prosecution witnesses could be examined. He further submits, however, as per his instructions after that PW-16 has also been examined and, therefore, till date total 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He next submits that in the charge sheet, there are total 82 witnesses and, therefore, there is no chance of early disposal of the trial. He further submits that there is neither any evidence on record nor any allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial.
7. He further submits, law is settled, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious case, he can be released on bail. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021)3 SCC 713 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharasthra and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024.
8. He further submits that, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of five other cases but his criminal history has been explained in paragraph no.48 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. He next submits that out of five cases, except offence under Section 307 IPC and case relates to U.P. Gangsters Act, all the other cases are of minor offences. He next submits in the case relates to provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act, applicant has been made an accused on the basis of the present case. In case, under Section 307 IPC, applicant is not even accused as no charge sheet has been filed against him.He further submits that except in case of U.P. Gangsters Act, in all the other cases, applicant is on bail. He further submits that therefore, considering the long incarceration of the applicant and sluggish speed of the trial, applicant should be enlarged on bail.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI vehemently -opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application and the first bail application has been dismissed with a detailed order and it is a case in which as per allegation, applicant by causing fire arm injury committed murder of the deceased. However, learned counsel for the CBI could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail for last more than four years and till date out of 82 witnesses, only 16 prosecution witnesses could be examined. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial. He however further submits that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of five other cases but again could not dispute the fact that except two cases, remaining cases relate to minor offences and in all the cases, except the case relates to U.P. Gangsters Act, applicant is on bail. He further could not dispute the fact that under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act, applicant has been made accused on the basis of the present matter.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
11. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh but as His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has been transferred from this Court and this Court is dealing with the matter of CBI, therefore, instant second bail application is listed today before this Bench.
12. From the record, it reflects, however, present matter relates to Section 302 IPC and as per CBI, applicant by causing fire arm injury committed murder of the deceased but it reflects in the present matter, applicant is in jail since August, 2021 i.e. for last more than four years.
13. Considering his long incarceration, this Court called a report from the court concerned about current status of the trial. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, learned court concerned has submitted his report, which is on record and from its perusal, it reflects that till 03.10.2025, total 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined. However, it reflects in the meantime, PW-16 has also been examined and, therefore, it appears that till date total 16 witnesses have been examined but it reflects in the charge sheet, there are total 82 witnesses and, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.
14. Further, there is no allegation that the applicant is causing delay in trial.
15. The law is settled, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious case, he can be released on bail. Considering the facts that applicant is in jail for last more than four years and there is no allegation that he is not cooperating with the trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated.
16. Further, however, ordinarily in the second bail application, there is no need to discuss the facts of the case as facts of the case have already been discussed in the first bail application but from the record, it reflects initially when the FIR of the present case was lodged then applicant was not named in the FIR and informant was the eye witness and he assigned the role of causing injury to the other accused persons but it appears after three years i.e. in the year 2019, investigation of the case was transferred to CBI and during further investigation, it was revealed that actually applicant was a person, who by causing fire arm injury committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, it reflects that applicant has been made accused in the present matter after three years.
17. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of five other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and it reflects except two cases, other cases are of minor nature. In case, under Section 307 IPC, applicant is not even an accused as in this case no charge sheet has been filed against him. Further, in case relates to provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act, applicant has been made an accused on the basis of the present case.
18. Further, law is settled, if after considering the long incarceration of accused, Court is of the view that he can be released on bail, then merely on the basis of the criminal antecedent, bail application of the accused should not be rejected. The Apex Court in case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 held as:-
"10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents."
19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
21. Let the applicant- Santosh Soni Alias Raj Bahadur Soni Alias Dhakad 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
November 20, 2025
Mini
