Allahabad High Court
SAMRATversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant as a prima‑facie case was established.
Summary
Samrat applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.40 of 2026) alleging he fired pellets causing injuries to three persons. The prosecution alleged he was the primary accused under IPC sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 3(5) BNS and Arms Act sections 3, 25, 27, while the defence argued his innocence, delay in filing the FIR, and that the injuries were minor and not life‑threatening. The informant’s counsel opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the injuries. The court examined the FIR, noted that no specific act was assigned to the applicant and that the injuries were simple, and, without passing on the merits, found a prima‑facie case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged gunshot injuries under the IPC and Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) BNS
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- Arms Act
- gunshot injuries
- prima facie
- pre‑trial liberty
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24745 of 2026
Samrat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jyoti Kumari Jaiswar, Tripurari Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Yadav, G.A., Raj Kumar Singh
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.119 out of 185)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Tripurari Pal and Sri Virendra Singh Pal, learned counsel for
the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as
well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused
the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.40 of 2026, under Sections 190,
191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 3(5) BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police
Station Bela, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other accused persons is
stated to have fired and caused gunshot injuries to three persons in all,
namely, Sanjay Singh, Kamendra and Shyamu, on 4.3.2026 at about 07:30
p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the
accused persons in the FIR, but subsequently in the statements of three
injured persons, it has come up that it was the applicant who fired and
caused the pellet injuries to all the three persons.
BAIL No. 24745 of 2026
2
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the injuries were
sustained by pellets and it is not possible for a person to fire three different
times so all the persons have sustained injuries at one go. The injuries were
not on the vital part of the body, as such, were not dangerous to life. The
criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained.
He is in jail since 5.3.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is the
primary accused person who inflicted gunshot injuries to the injured persons,
which is but evident from the statements of three injured persons. The
injuries were grievous in nature, as such, applicant is not entitled to bail.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that no particular act has been assigned in the FIR and
the injuries sustained by the injured persons were simple in nature, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Samrat, be released on bail in the aforementioned case
crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of
the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions
that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall
appear before the trial court as required.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…