Allahabad High Court
KARANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant with conditions.
Summary
The applicant Karan filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release in a case involving offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS and the Arms Act. The FIR alleged that Karan and two co‑accused assaulted the son of an informant with a sharp‑edged weapon, causing a grievous but non‑life‑threatening injury. The applicant argued that the injury was simple, co‑accused Vivek and Anurag had already been granted bail, and the trial was likely to be delayed. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the assault. The court, after considering the facts and the lack of danger to life, held that the case was fit for bail and ordered release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to strict conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure presence at trial dates.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the nature of the alleged assault and the injury caused.
- Whether the prior grant of bail to co‑accused and the pendency of the trial justify release of the applicant.
- Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 4/25
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 3(5), 351(3), 352, 483
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- assault with sharp‑edged weapon
- Arms Act
- witness tampering
- court pendency
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14282 of 2026
Karan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Om Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Maurya,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2026 under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5)
BNS and 4/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station Jani, District Meerut during
pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Vivek and
Anurag have been granted bail vide orders dated 20.4.2026 and 07.4.2026 passed in
Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11975 of 2026 and 11710 of 2026 respectively. It is
further submitted that as per the FIR, applicant and two other co-accused persons
Anurag and Vivek are said to have assaulted the injured by sharp-edged weapon,
however, injury no.1 received by the injured i.e. son of the informant is said to have
been caused by sharp-edged weapon and the same has been found to be simple in
nature. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 11.2.2026 and he
undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out
that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any
early conclusion of trial.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant.
5. As per allegations in the FIR, applicant and two other accused persons Anurag and
Vivek are said to have assaulted the son of the first informant by sharp edged weapon
due to which, he is said to have receive one injury of sharp-edged weapon which is
found to be grievous in nature but the same is not found to be dangerous to life. The
injured has assigned specific role of assault to the applicant and co-accused Vivek
who has already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
BAIL No. 14282 of 2026
2
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record
and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for
bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
7. Let the applicant Karan involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial
court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression
on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
this order.
May 6, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…