Allahabad High Court
RAVINDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail as no new ground for enlargement of bail was made out.
Summary
Ravindra applied for enlargement of bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 474 of 2024) involving charges of assault causing grievous hurt under Sections 126(2), 109, 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. The first bail application had been rejected, and the applicant argued that he is innocent, that no witness has been examined since the charge was framed on 01‑07‑2025, and that no incriminating material has been recovered. The State, represented by the A.G.A., contended that the FIR alleges the applicant assaulted the victim with a broken bottle, causing life‑threatening injuries, and that the seriousness of the offence warrants denial of bail. The court examined the record and found that the applicant’s counsel did not raise any new ground for bail beyond the earlier application. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant is not entitled to bail during the pendency of the trial. The bail application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the alleged assault causing grievous injuries
- Whether the lack of witness examination or recovery of material constitutes a new ground for granting bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 126(2), 351(3), 352, 483
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- grievous hurt
- charge framing
- no new ground
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24729 of 2026
Ravindra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tarun Jha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State-opposite party.
2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant
under Section 483 BNSS to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 474 of
2024, under Sections 126(2), 109, 352 and 351(3) of B.N.S., P.S. Rath,
District-Hamirpur. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated
02.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41030 of 2025.
3. 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. The only new ground on which the
application is seeking enlargement on bail through this application is that
a charge in this case has been framed ono 01.07.2025 but not even a
singly witness has been examined till date. He further submitted that no
incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the
applicant of on his pointing out. He lastly submitted that the applicant,
who is in jail since 25.10.2024 and has no criminal antecedents to his
discredit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that in the F.I.R. itself it is alleged that the
applicant-accused has assaulted the victim/injured person with a broken
bottle, as a result of which the alleged victim sustained grievous injuries,
wherein the Doctor Hari Narayan Rajpoot has given a statement that the
BAIL No. 24729 of 2026
2
injuries caused to the injured Sanjay are dangerous to life and in view of
the above, the applicant-accused is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record, since the learned counsel for
the applicant has not made out any new ground for enlargement of the
applicant on bail, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-
applicant - Ravindra on bail during the trial. Hence, this bail application
is rejected.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
September 25, 2026
Prashant D.
Digitally signed by :-
PRASHANT DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…