Allahabad High Court
SUHAILversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 078 of 2026) involving murder and injuries, alleging that the charges against him were false and that he had no prior criminal record. The prosecution argued that the applicant and co‑accused Sajid were the prime perpetrators, citing the statements of injured witnesses and a post‑mortem report that corroborated those statements. The court examined the FIR, witness statements, and the post‑mortem findings, noting that at least one witness (Kartik) sustained a minor injury, making his testimony credible. Considering the prima facie evidence that the applicant was a principal accused and the fact that he had been in custody since March 2026, the court found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court clarifying that its observations pertained only to bail and not the trial merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being alleged as a prime accused in a murder and assault case
- Credibility of injured witnesses' statements in light of the post‑mortem report
- Impact of the applicant's pre‑trial detention period on bail eligibility
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 131, 190, 191(2), 191(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- murder
- assault
- witness testimony
- post‑mortem report
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32240 of 2026
Suhail
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhananjai Rai, Udit Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Udit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran
Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 078 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190,
131, 103(1), 115(2), 118(1) BNS & Sections 4 and 25 Arms Act, Police
Station Singhwali Ahir, District Baghpat, during pendency of the trial in the
court below.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however it is a case in
which one person died and two persons Kartik and Boby sustained injuries
and as per allegation applicant and others involved in commission of the
present crime but entire allegations made against the applicant are totally
false.
5. He further submitted that from the statements of the alleged injured
persons it reflect according to them applicant and co-accused Sajid were the
prime accused who inflicted knife injuries to the deceased but from the
record it reflects, injured Boby did not sustain any injury and even injured
Kartik sustained only simple injury and therefore, their statements prima
facie appear to be doubtful.
6. He further submitted that applicant is innocent and he did not participate
in the instant crime.
BAIL No. 32240 of 2026
2
7. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history
and in the present matter he is in jail since 6.3.2026 i.e. for last more than six
months.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that
however, there are several accused in the instant case but applicant and co-
accused Sajid appear to be prime accused who inflicted knife injuries to the
deceased and at this stage, statements of injured witnesses cannot be
disbelieved.
9. He further submitted that even post mortem report also corroborates the
statements of injured witnesses.
10. He further submitted that therefore, instant bail application may be
dismissed.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
12. It reflects applicant is named in the FIR alongwith others and as per
allegation he alongwith others made assault due to which one person died
and two persons sustained injuries.
13. From the statements of the alleged injured persons it reflect, applicant
and co-accused Sajid were the prime accused who inflicted knife injuries to
the deceased. The statements of injured witnesses also find corroboration
from the post mortem report.
14. Further, however it reflects, injured Boby did not sustain any injury but
injured Kartik sustained injury though minor in nature, therefore, it cannot
be said that he is not the injured of the present case. Considering this fact at
least statement of injured witness-Kartik cannot be disbelieved, at this stage
and therefore, prima facie, it reflects, applicant and co-accused Sajid were
the prime accused.
15. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail only since March,
2026.
16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in view of this Court, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
17. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.
BAIL No. 32240 of 2026
3
18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during
trial.
September 17, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…