Allahabad High Court

YOGESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 24 September 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

The court held that there was no sufficient ground to grant bail and dismissed the application.

Summary

The accused, Yogesh Kumar, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the CrPC in a case (Crime No. 313 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 352, 3(5) and 109(1) of the IPC, alleging grievous injuries to the victim. He argued that only five of the fourteen prosecution witnesses had been examined and that he was falsely implicated, with no risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence. The State, represented by the Advocate General, contended that the injuries were grievous and the manner of the crime warranted denial of bail, also noting the withdrawal of a pending SLP before the Supreme Court. The court examined the medical reports confirming grievous injuries and found no new ground presented by the applicant to merit bail after the earlier denial. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, stating that the evidence and the applicant’s alleged complicity did not justify release on bail.

Issues considered

Whether the limited examination of prosecution witnesses justifies granting bail.
Whether the nature of the alleged injuries (grievous) warrants denial of bail.
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or risk of tampering with evidence.
Whether any new ground for bail exists after the first bail application was rejected.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 191, 352

Subjects

bail
grievous injuries
witness examination
flight risk
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
Allahabad High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28050 of 2026

Yogesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Damodar Pandey
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 Crime No. 313 of
2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 352, 3(5), 109(1) BNS, Police
Station- Pakabra, District- Moradabad. The first bail application was
rejected vide order dated 28.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 6266 of 2026.

3. Learned counsel for accused-applicant, while pressing this bail
application has raised new ground on which the applicant is seeking to
enlarge the applicant on bail through this application is that out of
fourteen witnesses only five prosecution witnesses have been examined
till date. He further submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely
implicated in the instant case and has not committed any offence, as
alleged by the prosecution. The accused-applicant is languishing in jail in
this matter since 5.11.2025, without having any criminal antecedents and
there is no likelihood that, the accused-applicant, after release on bail,
may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the
ground that, the injuries caused by the applicant are grievous in nature
and having regard to the manner, in which the crime has been committed,
the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Learned A.G.A.
BAIL No. 28050 of 2026
2

submitted that the applicant also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court
for seeking the relief of granting the bail in SLP (Criminal) No. 8443 of
2020, however the said SLP (Criminal) was withdrawn by the
applicant/accused.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, it is evident that, applicant was named in the first information
report of this case and allegation of causing grievous injuries to the
injured have been levelled against him in the first information report. In
the CT Scan report of the injured prepared by Cosmos Hospital, it has
been stated that Fractures of partially imaged lateral and postero-
medial walls of left orbit and also it has been stated in the X-ray pelvis
with both hip joint that, there appears fracture of right inferior public
ramus and there also appears fracture of right SI Joint and the doctor
is of the opinion that, the injuries caused to the head and pelvis are
grievous in nature. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to
make out any new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail during the
pendency of trial. Thus, having regard to the evidence available on record
against the applicant and his complicity in the crime, I do not find any
good ground to release the applicant on bail. Thus the bail application
moved on behalf of applicant - Yogesh Kumar is hereby rejected.

6. Observations made herein-above by this court, are only for the purpose
of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an
expression of this court on the merits of the case.

(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…