Allahabad High Court

SATYAM KHARWARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The court rejected the second bail application, finding no new reliable grounds to grant bail.

Summary

The accused, Satyam Kharwar, filed a second bail application in a case involving alleged sharp‑weapon injury to Raju Kumar under IPC sections 109, 115(2), 352 and 351(3). The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR lacked specific details, and that he had no criminal record, seeking release pending trial. The State contended that the FIR specifically named the accused, the injury was grievous and life‑threatening, and that releasing him could lead to witness intimidation and further offences. The court examined the seriousness of the injury, the specific role assigned to the accused in the FIR, and the risk of tampering with witnesses, finding no new cogent grounds to revisit the earlier bail denial. Consequently, the second bail application was rejected, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and secure witness statements via video‑conferencing.

Issues considered

Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences and the risk of witness intimidation.
Whether the lack of specific allegation in the FIR and the applicant's claim of false implication justify granting bail.
Whether the framing of charges without examination of prosecution witnesses affects the bail decision.
Whether any new material grounds exist to entertain a second bail application after the first was denied.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
grievous hurt
sharp weapon injury
witness intimidation
trial expeditious
section 109 IPC
section 115(2) IPC
section 352 IPC
section 351(3) IPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29527 of 2026

Satyam Kharwar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrita Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Balendra Deo Misra, G.A., Ram Ji
Singh

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This second bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-
applicant, Satyam Kharwar seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime
No.399 of 2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS, P.S.-
Kotwali, District- Ballia, during pendency of trial. First bail application of
the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.2.2026 in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5975 of 2026.

3. Tersely, as per allegation contained in the FIR, the accused-applicant
has caused sharp weapon injury to the injured Raju Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely
implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is languishing in
jail since 28.12.2025. It is submitted that either in the FIR or in the
statement of the injured Raju Kumar, no specific allegation has been
made against the accused-applicant and it is also not mentioned that what
weapon was used to cause the injury. It is further submitted that charge
has already been framed in the present case but no prosecution witnesses
have been examined till date. It is argued that accused-applicant has no
criminal antecedents to his credit. Submission is that the conclusion of
trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing
BAIL No. 29527 of 2026
2

from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on
bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have
opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submit that the accused-
applicant is named in the FIR and specific and distinct role of the
accused-applicant has been clearly assigned regarding causing sharp
weapon injury to the injured Raju Kumar. It is further submitted that the
injured has stated in his statement recorded before the IO that the
accused-applicant Satyam has caused the injury with some pointed object
and as per the medical report, the injury was dangerous to life. It is argued
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.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as also the
fact that applicant is named in the FIR and specific and distinct role of the
accused-applicant has been assigned regarding causing injury to the
injured Raju Kumar with sharp weapon, the injured has specifically stated
in his statement that he was returning from fair and then the accused-
applicant has caused the injury with some pointed object in his abdomen
due to some previous enmity, in the injury report of the injured Raju
Kumar, 'penetrating injury to abdomen (Stab injury by sharp object)' was
noted as 'sutured periumbilical wound measuring 3 cm is present on the
right side of umbilicus', as per the medical report, the injury was grievous
in nature and the injured was hospitalized in the Division of Trauma
Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Trauma Centre, BHU, Varanasi
for treatment, the grounds as raised by learned counsel for the applicant
have already been taken into consideration while disposing the first bail
application, charge has already been framed in the present case but no
prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, reasonable possibility
of intimidating/pressurizing the prosecution witnesses and reasonable
possibility to intervene the trial proceeding, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced,
the role and involvement of applicant, nature of injury, seriousness of
case, gravity of the accusation, this Court do not find any new cogent and
BAIL No. 29527 of 2026
3

reliable grounds in order to consider the second bail application of
applicant and enlarged him on bail in the aforesaid case, at this stage.

7. The second bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

8. However, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in
accordance with law and make every endeavour to conclude the same
expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order, by fixing short dates,
preferably two to three dates in a month. The Trial Court shall also
endeavour to secure all possible means for recording the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, particularly the informant and the injured witness,
through video-conferencing/online mode, in accordance with the
applicable rules and procedure, preferably within a period of two months.
Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted, unless warranted by any
legal impediment. The Trial Court shall also be at liberty to take
appropriate coercive measures including non-bailable warrant, in
accordance with law, to secure the presence of the informant and the
injured witness for recording their statements.

9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District and Sessions
Judge concerned within 48 hours.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
September 8, 2026
RA

Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…