SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 1344

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, J
SAHIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15039 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ranjan Dhwaj Tiwari
For the Respondents: G.A.

Bail may be granted where medical evidence demonstrates that injuries are simple and not life-threatening, especially when a general role is attributed to multiple accused and no severe internal damage is found.

Headnote:The applicant sought bail in a case registered under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.). The prosecution alleged that the applicant used blunt and sharp-edged weapons to assault the injured. However, medical evidence revealed only two lacerated wounds, and a CT scan confirmed no fracture or life-threatening internal damage. The primary issue was whether the nature of the injuries and the evidence warranted continued detention. The court observed that a general role was assigned to multiple accused and the medical reports indicated that the injuries were simple in nature, not being dangerous to life. The bail application is allowed

Table of Content
1. introduction of the bail application and the specific charges under b.n.s. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contest between the applicant's claim of false implication and the state's claim of primary accusation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. evaluation of medical evidence to determine the severity of injuries. (Para 5 , 6)
4. grant of bail based on the non-life-threatening nature of injuries and detention period. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.40 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 109(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Nichlaul, District- Maharajganj.

3. The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has been wrongly named in the First Information Report as Shahid, however, his name is Sahil. He further contends that a general role has been given to the applicant and the other accused of using blunt and sharp edged weapons to assault the injured. The injured has received two visible injuries one is an incised looking lacerated wound of size 2.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on the occipital area and the other is lacerated wound of size 2 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. on the right index finger. Relying upon the injury report, the Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the allegation in the First Information Report of using sharp edged weapons is false. He contends that later on realizing their mistake, the head injury has been attributed to the applicant. He further contends that no internal damage or fracture was found on the scalp and the injuries are simple in nature. The Learned counsel for the applicant contends that although the applicant is said to be involved in some previous criminal cases, however, in all the cases, the applicant has not been served with any summons or notice till today. The applicant is in jail since 19.02.2026.

4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has contended that the applicant is the primary accused in the present case. The applicant is one, who has been assigned the head injury that was received by the injured. The Learned A.G.A., however, could not dispute the explanation given by the Learned counsel for the applicant with respect to criminal antecedents of the applicant.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. A general role has been assigned in the First Information Report to three accused persons of using blunt and sharp edged weapons to cause injuries. Only two injuries have been found on the person on the injured with one being a head injury, which has later been attributed to the applicant in the statement of the injured. The statement of the Doctor Anil Kumar Rai, the Senior Consultant Radiologist, District Hospital Maharajganj indicates that in the CT Scan report of the injured, no fracture was found. There is also no opinion of the Doctor with respect to the injury being dangerous to life.

7. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the period of detention and the fact that the injured has not been shown to have received any life threatening injuries, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is allowed

9. Let the accused-applicant- Sahil, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top