Allahabad High Court
RADHEY SHYAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that the accused is entitled to bail because he was not named in the FIR and the nature of injuries does not justify his continued detention.
Summary
The accused, Radhey Shyam, applied for bail in a criminal case under IPC Sections 109(1), 3(5) and 117(2) arising from a delayed FIR dated 01‑06‑2026. He claimed false implication, stating the FIR was lodged by the victim's brother against two other persons and that his name was added only after a month based on an independent witness. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted that the accused was not originally named in the FIR and the injuries, though serious, did not justify continued detention. Relying on Supreme Court dicta in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re, the court granted bail without examining the merits. The bail was ordered on personal bond and two sureties, with a direction to cooperate for speedy trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 109, 3 and 117 of the IPC given the nature of injuries and the delayed FIR.
- Whether the accused's non‑mention in the FIR and alleged false implication warrant release on bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 117, 3
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- delayed FIR
- IPC sections 109, 3, 117
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32342 of 2026
Radhey Shyam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for accused applicant and
learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Radhey Shyam to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 140 of 2026,
under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 117(2) BNS, P.S.- Raunapar, District-
Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been falsely implicated in belated FIR dated 01.06.2026
lodged by the brother of injured against two named persons excluding the
accused applicant. It is alleged in the FIR that due to old enmity, the two
co-accused and one anonymous person had assaulted the brother of
injured with lathi danda which led to seven injuries with one fracture of
shoulder. It is further contended that the name of accused applicant has
been figured out from the statement of the independent witness Mithilesh
after one month of the incident. Further submitted that FIR is delayed.
The accused applicant has criminal history of three cases wherein he is on
bail. The charge sheet is submitted. The accused applicant is languishing
in jail since 30.07.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State 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.
BAIL No. 32342 of 2026
2
6. Considering the nature and number of injuries and the accused
applicant has not been named in the FIR, the accused/applicant is entitled
to be released 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 18, 2026
Sharad/-
Digitally signed by :-
SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…