Allahabad High Court
BALAKRAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
In the absence of a specific role, criminal antecedents, and given the limited nature of the injury, the court held that bail must be granted to the accused.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Balakram, who was arrested on 13‑02‑2026 in connection with a case originally under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. but later converted to Section 118(2). The applicant’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR did not assign any specific role to him, and that the injury to the victim Surendra was a single lacerated wound, not the grievous injury alleged. The State opposed bail, contending that the injury was grievous and the charge sheet proved the offence. The Court noted the absence of a specific role for the applicant, his clean criminal record, and the limited nature of the injury, and without passing on the merits, decided to grant bail. The order imposed standard bail conditions, including non‑tampering with evidence and regular appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused Balakram given the lack of a specific role in the offence, his clean record, and the nature of the alleged injury.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 118(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- injury assessment
- Section 118 B.N.S.
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15140 of 2026
Balakram
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Kesarwani, Vipan Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
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. 193 of 2025, under Sections 191(2),
115(2), 352, 351(3), 118(2) of the B.N.S., Police Station- Kampil,
District- Fatehgarh, during the pendency of the trial.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has been named
in the First Information Report (FIR) along with five other accused
persons, however, no specific role has been assigned to him. The learned
counsel for the applicant further contends that initially the FIR was
lodged under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S., the case
has now been converted to one under Section 118(2) of the B.N.S. The
learned counsel further submits that even in the statement of the injured,
Surendra, who is said to have received grievous injuries, having lost his
eye sight in one eye, a general role of assault has been given, whereas the
injury report of the injured, Surendra only shows a single lacerated
wound. The learned counsel further contends that the applicant is in jail
since 13.02.2026, having no criminal antecedents.
4. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended
that the injured, Surendra, has lost his eye sight in his left eye. The injury
was grievous in nature and the applicant and the other accused have
assaulted the injured, who are three in number. The charge sheet has now
been submitted and the offence against the applicant stands proved. No
indulgence may be granted to him.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
BAIL No. 15140 of 2026
2
6. No specific role has been given to the applicant. The applicant has no
criminal antecedents. The injured, Surendra, has received a single injury,
which is a lacerated wound 3 cms. x 1.5 cms., just lateral to the left eye.
The said injury has not been specified to have been caused by the
applicant. The FIR speaks of four injured, namely, Surendra, Mahavir,
Pankaj and Kishan Lal, however, only Mahavir, Pankaj and Surendra
have been medically examined.
7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, taking into
account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the role assigned to
the applicant, period of detention and the lack of criminal antecedents of
the applicant, I deem it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant.
8. Let the applicant - Balakram, 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
trial Court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the Court
concerned.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 5, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…