Allahabad High Court
NETRAPAL @ SUNNYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that the lack of specific incriminating evidence against the applicant and the contradictions in the prosecution’s case warrant the grant of bail, subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Netrapal alias Sunny, who was charged under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 351(3) and 352 of the B.N.S. for an alleged knife assault. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR and injured’s statement only ascribed a general role to him while the co‑accused Rahul confessed to the assault and the knife was recovered from Rahul. The court observed contradictions between the FIR, the injured’s statement and eye‑witness accounts, and found no incriminating material recovered from the applicant. It also noted that the applicant has no prior convictions (the other case under the Arms Act is pending) and that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. Accordingly, without passing on the merits, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions such as non‑tampering with evidence and regular appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 351(3) and 352 of the B.N.S. in view of the evidence.
- Whether the contradictions in the FIR, injured’s statement and eye‑witness testimony create reasonable doubt justifying bail.
- Whether the applicant’s pending case under the Arms Act affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- assault
- knife
- criminal procedure
- Sections 115, 109, 351, 352
- evidence contradiction
- witness intimidation
- non‑tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12668 of 2026
Netrapal @ Sunny
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.732 of 2025, under Sections 115(2),
109(1), 351(3), 352 of the B.N.S., Police Station- Iglas, District- Aligarh,
during the pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that in the
First Information Report (FIR), a general role of assaulting the injured
with a knife has been attributed to three named accused persons and five
unknown persons. Even in the statement of the injured, a similar version
involving eight persons assaulting the injured has been brought forth.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the police have filed a charge
sheet only against the applicant and co-accused Rahul, whereas the other
named accused, Chandar, has been taken out of the investigation. It is also
contended that the co-accused Rahul, after his arrest, led to the recovery
of a knife and confessed to his involvement, stating therein that he was
the one who assaulted the injured, while the co-accused had actually
intended to assault one Rakesh Kumar Saxena. Learned counsel for the
applicant further contends that in the statement of the eye-witnesses, who
supposedly witnessed the incident, the role of assault has been attributed
only to the co-accused Rahul and the applicant. The applicant has a
criminal history of one other case, which was lodged after the registration
BAIL No. 12668 of 2026
2
of the present case, being a case under the Arms Act, in which the
applicant is yet to apply for bail.
6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
8. The FIR has been lodged against eight persons, including three named
accused and five unknown persons. The injured sustained six injuries in
the incident. One of the injuries found on the person of the injured is s
tated to be a stab wound, from which a part of the small intestine had
started protruding. The doctor has opined the injuries to be grievous in
nature.
9. However, in the statement of the injured as well as the FIR, no specific
injury has been attributed to the applicant and only a general role has been
assigned to him. There also appears to be a contradiction between the FIR
version, the statement of the injured, who have assigned general role of
assault and the statements of eye- witness, Amar Singh and Kasmira, who
have attributed the role of assault only to the applicant and co-accused
Rahul.
10. Nothing incriminating has been recovered at the pointing out or from
the possession of the applicant. The knife is stated to have been recovered
from co-accused Rahul. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is
in jail since 17.11.2025. A charge sheet has already been filed and the
trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.
11. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as
enumerated above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, I deem it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant.
12. Let the applicant - Netrapal alias Sunny, involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal
bond and two 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
BAIL No. 12668 of 2026
3
trial Court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the Court
concerned.
13. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Court
below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his/her bail.
14. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
15. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
May 7, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…