Allahabad High Court

LOKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The court granted bail to the accused with conditions, finding no specific evidence of his direct involvement and emphasizing the constitutional right to liberty.

Summary

The accused Lokesh applied for enlargement of bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 361 of 2024) involving alleged assault with a hard object causing injuries to Rakesh and Munesh. The applicant argued that the FIR and victim statements did not assign him a specific role in the assault and that the subsequent amputation was a medical procedure, not a result of his actions. The State opposed bail, contending that innocence cannot be presumed at the pre‑trial stage and that the applicant might reoffend or tamper with evidence. The court noted that the charge‑sheet had been filed, the charges were framed, and there was no specific evidence of the applicant’s direct involvement or risk of witness intimidation. Relying on Article 21 of the Constitution and precedents such as Manish Sisodia v. DE, the court granted bail subject to personal bond, two sureties and strict conditions to prevent tampering or non‑appearance.

Issues considered

Whether the accused, despite being named in the FIR, is entitled to bail when no distinct role is established.
Whether the risk of flight, evidence tampering, or repeat offence justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 110 BNS, 115(2), 117(2), 117(3), 118(2), 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352, 3(5) BNS

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
IPC
Article 21
sureties
evidence tampering
witness protection

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24956 of 2025

Lokesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite

Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Yogendra Pal Singh

Along with :
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7954 of 2025:
Lokesh
Versus
State of U.P.

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in court in the present case by
learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Shri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the informant is not
present despite order of this court dated 24.02.2026.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-
respondent and perused the record.
4. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant,
Lokesh seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.361 of 2024 under
Sections 117(3), 109 and 3(5) BNS (under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
115(2), 352, 118(2), 351(2), 117(2) and 110 BNS in the connected
matter), P.S.- Behsuma, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial.
5. Tersely, as per allegation contained in the FIR, the accused-applicant
and co-accused persons have caused injury with hard and blunt object to
the injured Rakesh and Munesh.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the accused-
applicant is named in the FIR but either in the FIR or in the statement of
BAIL No. 24956 of 2025
2

the injured persons, no specific and distinct role has been clearly assigned
to the accused-applicant regarding causing injury. Furthermore,
amputation in the leg of the injured Rakesh was done due to gangrene. He
submits that the amputation is not caused by the accused-applicant and
during the course of medical treatment, the amputation was done by the
concerned doctor medically. He further submits that fracture is noted in
the lower half of shafts of tibia and fibula, which is on the non-vital part
of the body of the injured Rakesh. He further submits that cross case is
also pending being Case Crime No.360 of 2024 and both the parties
sustained injuries. Five persons from the accused side have also sustained
injury. Furthermore, the accused-applicant has criminal history of one
case, which has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit
and he is in jail since 04.02.2025. Furthermore, as per submission of
learned AGA, chargesheet has already been filed in this case. Submission
is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no
likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with
evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be
adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.
In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar
activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Having considered the submissions that though the accused-applicant is
named in the FIR alongwith four other co-accused persons but either in
the FIR or in the statement of the injured persons, no specific and distinct
role has been clearly assigned to the accused-applicant. The injured
persons, Rakesh and Munesh stated general allegation against all the
accused persons in their statements recorded before the IO. Cross case is
an admitted fact. As per submission of learned AGA, chargesheet has
already been filed in this case on 10.03.2025 and as per learned counsel
for the applicant, charge has also been framed, and, thus, there is no
reasonable possibility of intimidating and pressurizing the prosecution
witnesses. Accused-applicant is in jail since 04.02.2025 and keeping in
view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of
Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement
BAIL No. 24956 of 2025
3

2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A.
Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the
aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions that:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses.
(ii) 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 Court.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.
(iv) 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him.
(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him strictly in accordance with law.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the trial court.
10. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified
by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
March 19, 2026
Ankit.

Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…