Allahabad High Court
SARVESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted to the accused in view of the grave nature of the offence and the corroborative evidence.
Summary
Sarvesh Kumar, along with two co‑accused, was charged under IPC sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 118(2) for allegedly assaulting Roop Singh with an axe, brickbats and an iron rod, causing grievous injuries. The FIR was lodged a day after the incident, and the applicant argued that the delay and the omission of the exact place of occurrence raised doubts about his involvement. The prosecution countered with medical evidence of displaced nasal bone fractures and the testimony of the injured person and three witnesses who identified the accused. The court examined the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the injuries, and the credibility of the witnesses. Concluding that the allegations were substantiated and the offence was grave, the court refused to enlarge bail to the applicant.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged with grievous hurt under IPC sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 118(2).
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of a specific place of occurrence create reasonable doubt sufficient to justify bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the injuries and the victim's testimony preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- grievous hurt
- IPC sections 115 352 351 118
- assault
- medical evidence
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12085 of 2026
Sarvesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Dutt Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.
2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case
crime no. 01 of 2026, under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) and 118 (2)
B.N.S., P. S. Sahayal, District-Auraiya, is seeking enlargement on bail
during the trial.
3. In the F. I. R., which was lodged by the father of the injured, namely,
Roop Singh alias Avneesh, allegations of physical assault have been
levelled against the applicant and two other co-accused, namely
Ramlakhan and Pradeep Kumar. The applicant Sarvesh Kumar and co-
accused, namely Ramlakhan and Pradeep Kumar have been assigned the
role of causing injuries to the injured with axe, brickbats and iron rod,
respectively.
4. 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 incident is
alleged to have taken place on 1.1.2026 at about 16.00 hrs., whereas the
F. I. R. of the same was lodged on the next day, i. e. 2.1.2026 at about
00.59 hrs., though the distance of the police station from the place of
occurrence is only five kms. and there is no explanation for delay in
lodging the first information report, which suggests that the F. I. R. was
lodged after due deliberation and as an afterthought. He next submitted
BAIL No. 12085 of 2026
2
that in the F. I. R. place of incident has not been mentioned, which creates
doubt about the truthfulness of the incident. No motive has been assigned.
Criminal history of one case has been explained in the supplementary
affidavit filed by the applicant. He lastly submitted that the applicant,
who is in jail since 13.3.2026, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during
pendency of the trial.
5. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted
that the applicant along with other co-accused caused grevious injuries to
the injured, which could have proved fatal to their lives, therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. According to the
radiologist Dr. Ratnakar, X-ray report shows fracture of nasal bone,
which in his opinion is found to be grevious in nature. In the CT-Scan
report "displaced fracture is noted at both nasal bones with soft
tissue swelling around."
6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and
all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the
injured himself and witnesses, namely Shobhit Yadav, Ravindra and
Umesh Chandra have specifically stated that the applicant along with
other co-accused assaulted the injured with axe, brickbats and iron rod
and the fact that in the opinion of the doctor, the injuries are grevious in
nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant,
Sarvesh Kumar is rejected.
April 23, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…