Allahabad High Court

BHOLA RAJBHAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of any weapon, specific intent, or credible evidence linking the applicants to the offence, and given the prolonged pre‑trial detention, the applicants are entitled to bail subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bhola Rajbhar and Rajesh Rajbhar in a case under Sections 105 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging they assaulted an informant’s son who later died of hemorrhagic shock. The applicants claimed false implication, absence of any weapon, lack of pre‑meditation, and no prior enmity, asserting they lacked knowledge and intention to commit the offence. The State opposed bail but could not produce evidence of a weapon, specific intent, or a risk of tampering or intimidation. The court found the allegations vague, noted the three‑month pre‑trial detention, and observed no credible evidence linking the applicants to the crime. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicants on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to prevent evidence tampering, witness pressure, and to ensure court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether the applicants are entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges under Sections 105 and 352 IPC.
Whether the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence of a weapon, specific intent, or a risk of tampering/intimidation to deny bail.
Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention justifies granting bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 352

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
assault
IPC 105
IPC 352
false implication
evidence
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28096 of 2026

Bhola Rajbhar And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2026, under Sections 105, 352
B.N.S., Police Station- Sukhpura, District- Ballia during pendency of the
trial.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the allegations in the first information
report the applicants along with two others are alleged to have assaulted the
informant's son. During course of treatment at Global Hospital, the
informant's son died. As per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained
four injuries namely, (i) contusion on right triceps; (ii) contusion over-right
upper scapular region present; (iii) contusion over cervical region present;
and (iv) scalp hematoma over upper occepital region. In the opinion of the
doctor, cause of death is hemorrhagic shock due to antemortem injury. It is
contended that there is no prior enmity between the parties. The incident had
occurred at spur of the moment without any premeditation. No weapon of
assault has also been assigned to the applicants. Vague and general
allegations have been levelled against the applicants. The applicants neither
had any requisite knowledge nor the intention to commit the offence. The
criminal history of the applicant no.1 has been explained in para 3 of the
supplementary affidavit. The applicant no.2 has no criminal history. The
BAIL No. 28096 of 2026
2

applicants are in jail since 22.6.2026. In case they are enlarged on bail, they
will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that no weapon of assault has been assigned to the
applicants. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the
applicants. At this stage there is no credible evidence to establish that the
applicant possessed the requisite knowledge or the intention to commit the
offence. Further the applicants has presently remained confined for almost
three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when
no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the
applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am
of the opinion that the applicants is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicants, Bhola Rajbhar and Rajesh Rajbhar involved in the
aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on
the following conditions that:

i. the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
September 21, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…