Allahabad High Court
SUSHIL KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF UP
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted and rejected the application.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Sushil Kumar Yadav, who is accused in a criminal case (Crime No. 01 of 2026) for alleged assault under Sections 109(1), 352, and 351(3). The applicant claimed absolute innocence, argued that the FIR lacked a motive, and highlighted a CT scan showing no serious head injury, while also noting his clean record and pre‑trial detention since 2 January 2026. The State, represented by the informant and the Additional Government Advocate, opposed bail, emphasizing the FIR’s allegation of assault and a doctor’s statement that the victim sustained serious head injuries that could have been fatal. After hearing both sides and reviewing the material, the Court found the seriousness of the alleged offence and the medical evidence sufficient to justify continued detention. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, refusing enlargement of bail during the trial.
Issues considered
- The applicant is entitled to bail during the trial despite the seriousness of the alleged assault.
Subjects
- bail
- criminal trial
- assault
- medical evidence
- FIR
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11018 of 2026
Sushil Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devendra Singh, G.A., Jitendra Kumar
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on
record.
2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case
Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 352, 351(3), P.S. Sen
Paschim Para, District South Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar, is seeking
enlargement on bail during the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case
due to some ulterior motive. He next submitted that the allegation of
physical assault upon the victim has been leveled against the applicant.
He further submitted that there was no motive or reason to cause injury to
the injured, which is evident from the FIR itself. He also submitted that
as per C.T. Scan report, "No obvious calvarial fractures are seen." He
lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 2.1.2026 and has no
criminal antecedents to his discredit is entitled to be enlarged on bail
during pendency of the trial.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant, as
well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that in the F.I.R. itself it is alleged that the applicant-accused
has assaulted the victim/injured person, who is aged about thirty years. He
further submitted that, according to the statement of doctor "मजरूब के िसर पर
BAIL No. 11018 of 2026
2
टांके लगे हुए थे एवं प्टी बंधी हुई थी चोट तो गंभीर थी यिद थोड़ा ज्यादा लग जाती तो जान जाने की पूरी
संभावना थी। परन्तु भाग्यवश चोट ज्यादा न होने की वजह से मरीज की जान बच गयी। इस ्ऺकार बयान देते
हुए बताया गया।" and in view of the above, the accused-applicant is not
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the applicant on bail during the trial, hence this bail application is
rejected.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
April 17, 2026
Faridul
Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…