Allahabad High Court

ASHOK YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: AVNISH SAXENA

Holding

Since the injuries and alleged weapon do not prima facie show intent to kill, bail was granted.

Summary

The accused, Ashok Yadav, applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 385 of 2026) alleging assault with an iron rod that allegedly caused injuries, including eye damage, to the victim Amrendra. The applicant claimed false implication and argued that the injuries were not of a magnitude to indicate intent to kill, and that he was cooperating with the investigation. The State opposed bail, asserting a pre‑meditated assault and a personal connection between the accused and the victim. The court examined the nature of the injuries, the alleged weapon, and the applicant’s criminal history, and found that the facts did not prima facie demonstrate an intention to kill. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, directing the accused to cooperate with the judicial process.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in an assault case alleged under IPC sections 109, 117 and 352 where intent to kill is contested
Whether the nature of injuries and the alleged weapon establish a prima facie case of intent to kill
Whether the applicant’s criminal history and ongoing investigation justify denial of bail
How the Supreme Court’s recent bail jurisprudence (Girish Gandhi v. State of UP and related policy) applies

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 117, 352

Subjects

bail
assault
intent to kill
Indian Penal Code
criminal procedure
Supreme Court precedent
criminal history

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31852 of 2026

Ashok Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devvrat Misra, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashwani Kumar Soni, G.A.

Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Learned counsel for the applicant hands up the supplementary affidavit
disclosing criminal history, the same is taken on record.

1A. Heard Sri Apul Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Chandra Prakash Mishra, learned counsel holding brief appeared for the
accused-applicant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the
informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present bail application has been moved by the accused-applicant
Ashok Yadav to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2026,
under Sections 109(1), 117(3), 352 BNS, P.S.- Uttar, District- Firozabad,
during the pendency of trial.

3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the accused-applicant that
the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. dated
07.07.2026 with the allegation levelled by the brother-in-law of the
injured Amrendra that while Amrendra went for a walk at night, the
accused persons including the accused-applicant had assaulted him by the
iron rod with the intention to kill. Further submits that there was some
altercation between the parties and due to sudden fight there was assault,
wherein both father and son have been implicated in the F.I.R. Further
submits that the injured suffered three injuries, as per the medico legal
examination, wherein one injury suffered is damage of the eye of injured.
Further submits that the nature of injuries are not of such magnitude to
show that it was inflicted with the intention to kill. The investigation is
BAIL No. 31852 of 2026
2

continuing. He is cooperating in the investigation. The applicant has one
case criminal history wherein the proceeding is stayed by this Court. The
applicant is in jail since 07.07.2026 and hence, the applicant seeks to be
released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for State have
opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that the
accused-applicant and the injured know each other, as he is friend of the
son of accused, who has committed suicide and the accused persons had
considered that the accused-applicant was instrumental in the said suicide.
Further submit that the independent witnesses, who have been examined
during investigation, have stated that the injured was smoking, when the
accused persons had started assaulting. It was a pre-meditated act on the
part of the accused persons. As such, the bail application be rejected.

5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Considered the nature of injuries and the alleged weapon used, which
prima facie does not show that it was inflicted with the intention to kill.

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.

September 23, 2026
Abhishek Sri.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…