Allahabad High Court
AJAY KASHYAPversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Ajay Kashyap, was arrested in connection with an assault case (Crime No. 148 of 2026) after a CCTV footage and victim's statement identified him, although his name was absent from the original FIR filed on 4‑April‑2026. He has a modest criminal record and has been in custody since 23‑May‑2026. The applicant sought bail, arguing that the injuries were simple, the identification was not corroborated by an identification parade, and that the nature of the offences did not warrant continued detention. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the charges under Sections 191, 190, 109, 131, 126(2) and 352 of the BNS. The Court, considering the nature of injuries, the lack of the applicant’s name in the FIR, and recent Supreme Court guidelines, allowed the bail application, ordering release on personal bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being identified through CCTV and victim's statement.
- Whether the nature and severity of injuries and the charges under the BNS justify denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history impacts the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109(1), 126(2), 131, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 35(3), 41A
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- identification
- FIR
- injury severity
- Supreme Court precedent
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31772 of 2026
Ajay Kashyap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ifra Fatima
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed explaining criminal history, the
same is taken on record.
1A. Heard Ms. Ifra Fatima, learned counsel for accused applicant and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Ajay Kashyap to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 148 of 2026,
under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 131, 126(2), 352 of BNS,
P.S.- Budhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the
informant Mangeram has lodged the FIR on 4.4.2026 against four named
and one anonymous persons. The incident is dated 3.4.2026 occurred at
19:20 hrs alleging in the FIR that the son of the informant, namely, Amit
was returning home when he has been surrounded by the accused persons
and they have assaulted him. It is further contended that the injured
suffered three injuries. The weapon shown in the FIR is iron rod and
sharp edged weapon. The injuries sustained by the injured are three and
all are simple in nature as per the injury report and the supplementary
medico legal report. It is further contended that the weapons used shown
in the medical report is hard and blunt object. The accused applicant has
not been named in the FIR. He has initially not been named either by the
injured or the eye witness. Subsequently, on the basis of CCTV footage,
name of the accused applicant has been reflected. There is no test
BAIL No. 31772 of 2026
2
identification parade but the injured in his subsequent statement has
named him. The charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant has three
cases criminal history, out of which, in one case, he is not named, in one
case, he is released on notice under Section 41A CrPC/35(3)BNSS and in
one case, he is on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since
23.5.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the nature and number of injuries and that the name of the
accused applicant is not in the FIR, the accused applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. 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
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 23, 2026
Krishna*
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…