Back
2026 Supreme(All) 635
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
Ayodhya Singh @ Kaksh Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15823 of 2026
Decided On : 11-05-2026
For the Applicants :Saurabh Chaturvedi, Sr. Advocate Counsel
For the Respondent: G.A.
Bail cannot be denied solely due to criminal history. The court must evaluate the gravity of the offense, the individual role of the accused, and medical evidence. Discretionary power to grant bail remains even in the presence of prior convictions if the totality of circumstances warrants it.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 352 and 351(3) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Bail application - Non-bailable offence - Previous conviction - Discretion of court - Principles of personal liberty.
(B) Bail applications cannot be rejected solely on the ground of criminal history or previous conviction. Courts must assess individual roles and the nature of injuries. The existence of prior cases is a relevant factor but not an absolute bar to relief. (Paras 10, 11).
(C) Statutory phrase "punishable with" regarding prior conviction must be interpreted in light of the actual sentence awarded rather than the maximum statutory punishment available for an offence. (Para 16).
Facts of the case:
The applicant was charged under various sections of the penal code for an alleged assault using a sharp-edged weapon. The injured sustained wounds and rib fractures, which were held to be not life-threatening. The applicant had prior criminal history and was a former convict.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that while criminal antecedents are critical, they do not necessitate denial of bail if the specific role attributed and medical evidence suggest that continued incarceration is not warranted. The court exercised its discretionary power, determining that the applicant was entitled to bail based on the specific circumstances and the nature of the injuries.
Issues: Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents and previous conviction serve as an absolute bar to the grant of bail, and how the term "punishable" within the statutory provision for bail should be interpreted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that determining the entitlement to bail requires balancing the gravity of the offence with the right to liberty, ensuring that statutory bars regarding prior convictions are not applied mechanically without considering the specific facts, medical evidence, and individual culpability of the accused.
Result: Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the case, allegations of assault, and the parties' contentions regarding bail and criminal history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. examination of the legal framework under section 480 bnss and the relevance of prior criminal records in bail adjudications. (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. interpretation of 'punishable' in statutory bail bars requires considering the actual sentence awarded rather than statutory maximums. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. judicial discretion allows granting bail despite prior convictions if the applicant's role and specific case circumstances warrant relief. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. final order granting bail subject to strict compliance with specified conditions regarding conduct and evidence integrity. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nirmal Kumar Singh, Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime no.372 of 2025, under Sections 109 (1), 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Revti, District Ballia.
3. Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, Learned Senior Advocate contends that the applicant has been assigned a general role in the FIR. The applicant is said to have been armed with a Tangi. He contends that the Tangi is a sharp-edged axe like weapon and the injured has not received any incised wound. He further contends that in the X-ray report, the fracture of the 9th rib was found and the said injury is not dangerous to life. The applicant is said to have been in jail since 16.12.2025. The applicant has a criminal history of 11 cases and he has been convicted in one case and has been awarded five year's imprisonment. He is on bail in the said case.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that the earlier conviction of the applicant was recorded for an offence under Section 307 IPC. The present case also is a case for an offence under Section 307 IPC ( Section 109 BNS). He has two other cases under Section 307 IPC to his credit. The applicant is a repeat offender and may not be considered for grant of bail as he is likely to repeat the offence in the near future.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties.
6. The applicant is named in the FIR and has been assigned the role of assaulting the injured with a 'Tangi'. Tangi is stated to be a sharp-edged weapon like an axe. The injured has received two lacerated wounds, one just above the eyebrow on the left side of the forehead and the other behind the left ear near the mastoid process. The other injuries found on the person of the injured were all abrasions and complaint of pain. The X- ray report notes a fracture on the 9th rib. Later, it appears that a medical board had been constituted, which also found fracture in the 8th and 10th ribs also. The injuries sustained by the injured were not found to be dangerous to life.
7. Coming to the objection with respect to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is said to be a previous convict for an offence under Section 307 IPC and has been awarded five years’ imprisonment. He is stated to be on bail under the orders of this Court. The order of this Court has been annexed as Annexure No.19 to the affidavit, and the details regarding the conviction have been mentioned in paragraph no.33. 8. The prohibition for grant of bail, as provided under Section 480 of the BNSS (earlier Section 437 Cr.P.C.), is for the Courts other than the High Court or the Court of Session. Section 480 of the BNSS reads as under:-
“480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence.-
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court o
