Allahabad High Court
SURAJ@NIKHILversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME GOV. OF U.P. AT LUCKNOW
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
Since the applicant’s role is distinguishable from the principal offender and a prima facie case for bail exists, the court allowed bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Suraj @ Nikhil, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 82 of 2026) alleging that he, along with three other accused, set an injured person on fire by pouring an accelerant. The applicant claimed false implication, arguing that the FIR was lodged four days after the incident and that his role was limited to pouring sanitizer/spirit, while the actual ignition was carried out by co‑accused Prince Raghav. The prosecution could not dispute the distinction in the applicant’s role and noted the injured’s thermal burns covering 14‑18% of body surface. After reviewing the facts, the court found a prima facie case for bail and held that the applicant’s detention was not justified. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and to ensure regular appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, Suraj @ Nikhil, is entitled to bail despite being charged under Sections 191(2), 190, 109(1) and 351(2) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged role in the alleged arson is sufficiently distinct from that of the principal offender to merit bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 180, 190, 191(2), 351(2)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- arson
- criminal procedure
- prima facie case
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- Section 191
- Section 190
- Section 109
- Section 351
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16385 of 2026
Suraj@Nikhil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home
Gov. Of U.P. At Lucknow .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dwijendra Prasad
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. 82 of 2026, under Sections 191(2),
190, 109(1), 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Etmaddaula, District-
Agra.
3. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. In the F.I.R., the
applicant has been nominated along with three other named accused and
two unknown persons. The allegation against the applicant and other
accused is of setting the injured on fire by pouring an accelerant. Learned
counsel further contends that the F.I.R. has been lodged after four days of
the occurrence. The injured in his statement under Section 180 BNSS has
assigned the role of pouring some sanitizer/spirit on the applicant along
with the other accused. However, the role of using the matches to set the
injured on fire has been given to the co-accused Prince Raghav. The
applicant has a criminal history of one other case in which the maximum
sentence, that can be awarded to the applicant, is 7 years. He is in jail
since 6.4.2026.
4. The Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for
grant of bail, however, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant's
BAIL No. 16385 of 2026
2
role is distinguishable from that of the co-accused Prince Raghav.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties and perused the material brought on the record.
6. The applicant is stated to be in jail since 6.4.2026. The F.I.R. has been
lodged after four days of the occurrence. In the discharge slip, prepared
by the S.N. Medical College and Hospital, Agra, the diagnosis records
that the injured had received accidental thermal burn injury due to
catching fire. The injury is said to have been covering about 14-18% of
the total body surface area. The injured is said to have been admitted on
2.4.2026 and discharged on 7.4.2026.
7. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
prima facie, a case for bail is made out.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the accused-applicant- Suraj @ Nikhil, involved in above
mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a
personal bond and two reliable 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.
10. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court
below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
BAIL No. 16385 of 2026
3
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
12. 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.
13. The observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the
instant bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on
the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
May 14, 2026
Vandana
Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…