Allahabad High Court
RAJENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajendra, who was named in an FIR for assaulting the father of an informant, which later resulted in the father's death. The applicant contended that the allegations against him were false, that the case was originally filed under Section 109 IPC and later upgraded to Section 103(1) after the death, and that a co‑accused had already been released on bail. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions raised by the applicant. The court noted that the FIR contained only general allegations, the post‑mortem showed non‑vital injuries, the applicant's prior convictions were for minor offences, and the co‑accused had been granted bail. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history and the conversion of charges after the victim's death preclude bail.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused influences the bail decision for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 109, 115(2), 117(2), 131, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- assault
- murder
- prior criminal history
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32250 of 2026
Rajendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rohit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with
the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.279 of 2026, under
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 131, 115(2), 352, 117(2), 351(2) and 103(1)
BNS, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in
the FIR along with five others and according to the FIR due to dispute
applicant and other accused persons with their respective weapons made
assault upon the father of the informant due to which he sustained injuries
but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.
4. He further submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged for
offence punishable under Section 109 BNS and other offences but after
death of the injured, i.e, father of the informant, case has been converted for
offence under Section 103(1) BNS.
5. He further submits, alongwith applicant co-accused Rohit was also made
accused and he has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated
31.8.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 30287 of 2026 and case
of applicant is at par with him.
6. He further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of two other cases but his criminal history has been
explained in the instant bail application and both the cases relate to minor
BAIL No. 32250 of 2026
2
offence. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
27.04.2026.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
9. However, it reflects, applicant is named in the FIR along with others and
as per FIR he alongwith others made assault upon deceased but it reflects,
only general allegations have been made against the applicant. Further post
mortem report suggests, deceased sustained injuries on his non vital parts.
10. Further, however applicant is having criminal history of two other cases
but both the cases relate to minor offences.
11. Further, co-accused Rohit has been released on bail by this Court and
case of applicant is at par with him.
12. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.4.2026 i.e. for
last more than four months.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant - Rajendra, 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
BAIL No. 32250 of 2026
3
16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail
of the applicant.
17. 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…