Allahabad High Court

HAPPY @ HARPREETversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 24 September 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail as there is no change in circumstances and the seriousness of the alleged assault justifies denial of bail.

Summary

The applicant, Happy @ Harpreet, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the CrPC in a case (Crime No. 367 of 2025) alleging assault under IPC Sections 351(3), 352, 3(5) and 109(1). He claimed innocence, asserted that no incriminating material was recovered from him, and argued that the only new ground for bail was the framing of charge. The State opposed bail, citing the FIR alleging the applicant assaulted a sixty‑year‑old victim, supported by a CT scan and injury report showing serious head injuries and a nasal fracture. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 19‑Feb‑2026, had no prior criminal record, but found no change in circumstances or law since the earlier rejected bail application. After considering the victim’s statement, medical evidence, and the unchanged factual matrix, the court declined to enlarge bail and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 CrPC given the seriousness of the alleged assault.
Whether the framing of charge or lack of recovered incriminating material warrants enlargement of bail.
Whether the medical injury report and victim’s testimony preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 3(5), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
assault
injury report
repeat bail application
court discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25988 of 2026

Happy @ Harpreet
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Prakash
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. 367 of
2025, under Sections 351(3), 352, 3(5), 109(1) BNS, Police Station-
Bhagatpur, District- Moradabad. The first bail application was rejected
vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 10945 of 2026.

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 applicant
seeks enlargement on bail is the framing of charge. He next submitted that
general allegation of assaulting the victim has been made against four
persons, including applicant. He further submitted that no incriminating
article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his
pointing out. The recovery of axe has been allegedly shown from the
possession of co-accused Santosh. He lastly submitted that the applicant,
who is in jail since 19.2.2026 and has no criminal antecedents to his
discredit and, therefore, 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
BAIL No. 25988 of 2026
2

applicant-accused has assaulted the victim/injured person, who is aged
about sixty years. The applicant is named in the F.I.R along with three
other co-accused. He further submitted that, according to the CT scan
report, a deep lacerated wound and swelling are visible in the parietal
region, along with a fracture of the nasal bone, hence the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.

5. This court takes note of the supplementary injury report of injured
Ompal Singh dated 16.01.2025 where it is found:

"PHYSICAL ASSAULT HEAD INJURY NCCT BRAIN SHOWES DEFINED HYPERDENCE

AREAS ARE NOTED IN B/C FRONTAL. CONVEXITIES LEFT PARIETOTEMPORAL, cm

s/o LARGEST OF THEM MEASURING 1.5x1.4x1.3 HEMORRHAGIC CONTUSION. MILD

PERILESIONAL EDEMA IS NOTED FEW ASSOCIATED AIR FOCI NOTED SDH component

noted along falx a crescent shaped hyperdensity is noted in the left

temporal. He was treated conservatively in icu"

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record, moreover, there is no change
in the circumstances or the law, as such the grounds raised in the earlier
application have been repeated by and large, hence taking into
consideration, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
considering the statement of the victim and witnesses, this Court is not
inclined to enlarge the applicant- Happy @ Harpreet 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…