Allahabad High Court
ANUJ NATH PASWANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that the accused is entitled to bail as the charge sheet does not specifically implicate him and there is insufficient justification to keep him detained.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Anuj Nath Paswan, accused in a case of alleged assault on a minor (Sonu) under multiple sections of the BNS. The applicant claimed false implication, citing inconsistencies in the FIR, lack of a medical examination on the primary victim, and the absence of a test identification parade despite alleged CCTV footage. The State opposed bail, arguing that CCTV identified the accused and that the investigation was ongoing. The court noted that the charge sheet did not attribute a specific role to the applicant, there were no prior convictions, and the nature of the injuries did not warrant continued detention. Consequently, without addressing the merits of the case, the court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, directing the applicant to cooperate with the judicial process.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS.
- Whether the existence of CCTV footage, without a test identification parade or certification, suffices to deny bail.
- Whether the lack of a specific role attributed to the accused in the charge sheet and the absence of prior criminal history justify bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- identification parade
- CCTV evidence
- medical evidence
- false implication
- assault
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31465 of 2026
Anuj Nath Paswan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for accused applicant Sri
Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Anuj Nath Paswan to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 345 of
2026, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3),
3(5) of BNS, P.S.- Cantt., District- Gorakhpur during the pendency of
trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the
accused applicant has been falsely implicated during investigation in FIR
dated 7.7.2026 lodged by the uncle of injured Sonu with the allegation
that 5 to 6 anonymous boys had assaulted the injured at about 09:00 pm
with the lathi danda and sharp edged weapon. It is further contended that
during investigation, the statement of the injured Prince Kumar was
recorded under Section 180 BNSS wherein he has disclosed the name of
the accused persons including the accused applicant. It is further
contended that Prince Kumar sustained one injury as has been shown in
the medico legal examination carried out at District Hospital, Gorakhpur
wherein one stitch wound was shown and according to the doctor, there is
no opinion drawn for the injuries, he sustained. It is further contended that
there is no medico legal examination carried out on injured Sonu. The
only report of NCCT head was available, which shows that there is post
BAIL No. 31465 of 2026
2
operative wound detected in the right fronto-parietal and temporal area,
which is also not corroborated to the incident that is shown in the FIR. It
is further contended that there is oral statement of the injured and there is
mark inconsistency in the number of person, who have assaulted. It is
further contended that there is no reason and motive assigned for the said
assault. The charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no
criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.7.2026. He
seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed
the bail and submits that there is CCTV footage on the basis of which,
the accused persons have been identified. The complicity of the accused is
apparent from the record that he was also one of the assailant. The
investigation is continuing. As such, submits that the bail application
should be rejected.
5. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the informant submits
that there is no test identification parade in pursuance to the alleged
CCTV footage, which according to the learned counsel is not available.
He further submits that there is no certificate of CCTV footage taken on
the case diary so far.
6. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the nature and number of injuries and number of accused
persons as well as there is no specific role attributed on the accused
applicant for committing the offence, the accused applicant is entitled to
be enlarged on bail.
8. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
9. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
BAIL No. 31465 of 2026
3
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
10. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 8, 2026
Krishna*
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…