Allahabad High Court
SHAURYA PRATAP @ SHANUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Shaurya Pratap, accused in Crime No. 297 of 2026 under Section 109(1) of the BNS Act and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, applied for bail. The case involved a police firing in which the applicant himself sustained a gunshot injury. The learned counsel explained the applicant’s criminal history, and the court held that antecedents alone cannot justify continued detention if bail criteria are otherwise satisfied. Considering the facts, the prima facie case for bail was found to be made out, without expressing any view on the merits. The court therefore granted bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions such as non‑tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite his criminal antecedents.
- Whether the nature of the offence under the BNS Act and Arms Act warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- Arms Act
- police firing
- personal bond
- sureties
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28092 of 2026
Shaurya Pratap @ Shanu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dur Vijay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 156 out of 185)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri J.P.S. Jadaun, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Dur Vijay
Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 297 of 2026, under Section 109(1)
BNS and 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras,
during the pendency of trial.
4. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained.
5. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out,
an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history assigned to the
applicant has been properly explained.
6. 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 it is a police party firing no injury case and that
rather the applicant sustained gunshot injury in the cross-fire made by
police, 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.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
BAIL No. 28092 of 2026
2
7. Let the applicant- Shaurya Pratap @ Shanu, who is involved in
aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall
not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
8. Breach of any of the above condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observation herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…