Allahabad High Court

AJAB SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: AVNISH SAXENA

Holding

The bail application is allowed; the accused are entitled to bail.

Summary

The accused Ajab Singh and Ramji Lal applied for bail in a case under Sections 109(1), 115(2) and 352 of the BNS, alleging they were implicated in an assault involving knives on two injured persons. The informant’s brother filed the FIR, claiming the accused surrounded and assaulted the victims with sharp-edged weapons, while the prosecution highlighted the grievous nature of the injuries and the six‑month hospitalization of the victims. The defence argued that the FIR assigns the accused only the possession of lathi and danda, with no evidence linking them to the knife injuries, and that they have no prior criminal record and are cooperating with the investigation. The court examined the role assigned to the accused, noted the lack of injury caused by blunt objects, and relied on Supreme Court precedents on bail policy. Without addressing the merits of the case, the court allowed the bail application, ordering release on personal bond and two sureties per accused, subject to cooperation with the judicial process.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 109(1), 115(2) and 352 of the BNS despite alleged grievous injuries.
Whether the role assigned to the accused (possession of lathi/danda) is sufficient to justify denial of bail.
Whether the seriousness of the injuries and the continuation of investigation preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 109(1), 115(2), 352

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Sections 109(1)
Section 115(2)
Section 352
grievous injury
Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court precedent
personal bond
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31984 of 2026

Ajab Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dileep Kumar Shukla, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri
Dileep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present bail application has been moved by the accused applicants-
Ajab Singh and Ramji Lal to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 29
of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352 of BNS, P.S.- Pacchayagaon,
District- Etawah during the pendency of trial.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicants that the
FIR has been lodged by the brother of one of the injured against three
named including the accused applicants and some anonymous persons. It
is alleged in the FIR that on 4.8.2026 at about 18:30 hrs the accused
persons had surrounded the brother of informant, namely Ramvrat @
Rambrij. The another injured when came to rescue him, all the accused
persons had assaulted him as well. Both the injured suffered injuries due
to sharp edged weapon (knife). Ramvrat suffered three incised wounds
whereas Ajendra Singh suffered one incised wound. It is further
contended that the specific role of inflicting knife injuries on Ramvrat is
assigned to Ajay Singh, whereas, Omveer is assigned the role of
assaulting Ajendra Singh. In the statement of the witnesses recorded
under Section 180 BNSS, the role assigned on the accused applicants is of
having lathi and danda in their hands. There is no injury of lathi and
danda. It is further contended that during investigation, 18 persons have
BAIL No. 31984 of 2026
2

been assigned the role, which does not correspondent to the injuries. The
investigation is continuing and the accused applicants are co-operating in
the investigation. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicants
are languishing in jail since 7.8.2026. 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 are grievous injuries on the persons of both
the injures. They remain admitted in the hospital for six months. The
injuries are grievous in nature. The presence of accused applicants is
there. As such, submits that the bail application should be rejected.

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

6. Considering the role assigned to the accused applicants and there is no
injury sustained to the injured pertaining to hard and blunt object, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…