Allahabad High Court
DEVENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court allowed bail to the accused without touching the merits of the case.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Devendra, accused in a case involving offences under Sections 191, 118, 117, 115, 352 and 109 of the BNS, relating to alleged assault and grievous injury to the informant's son. The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged belatedly and that he was falsely implicated due to an old enmity, and pointed out that the charge sheet showed another co‑accused was exonerated. The State opposed bail, relying on the fact that a co‑accused’s bail had been denied and that the offences were serious. The Court noted the delay in reporting the injury, the alleged false implication, and the presence of old enmity, and concluded that these factors warranted bail. Without deciding the merits, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond and sureties, citing Supreme Court precedents on bail policy.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite serious charges including assault causing grievous injury.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged false implication affect the bail decision.
- Whether the denial of bail to a co‑accused is determinative for the present application.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history precludes bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- FIR delay
- grievous injury
- old enmity
- criminal procedure
- Supreme Court bail jurisprudence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32521 of 2026
Devendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Sri Satish Chandra Tiwari, learned advocate has filed
vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, the same is taken on
record.
1A. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for
accused applicant, Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant
and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant
accused- Devendra to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.
337 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 117(2),
115(2), 352, 109 of BNS, P.S.- Bisauli, District- Budaun
during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant
that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in FIR
dated 14.12.2025 lodged belatedly for the initial incident dated
12.12.2025 and subsequent incident dated 14.12.2025. It is the
allegation in the FIR lodged against six persons including
the accused applicant that the accused persons have assaulted
the son of informant Satyaveer on 12.12.2025 wherein he
suffered hair line fracture of 4th left rib. It is further contended
that FIR has not been lodged on the date of incident.
Subsequently on 14.12.2025 the injured Satyaveer was taken to
BAIL No. 32521 of 2026
2
the police station from where he was sent for medico legal
examination. In the meantime, the accused persons have barged
into the house of the informant and assaulted Munish Kumar
and Kusumwati. It is further contended that both of them
suffered injuries. It is further contended that it is because of the
old enmity that the FIR has been lodged. The charge sheet has
been submitted. The applicant has five cases criminal history.
In one case, he is on bail and in one case, final report has been
submitted and in three cases, he has not been arrested as no
summons have been issued. The applicant is languishing in jail
since 22.1.2026. 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 the bail application of co-
accused Munnalal, who is also framed in the present case, has
been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. All the
accused persons had similar role. As such, submits that the bail
application should be rejected.
5. Countering the argument, learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the charge sheet has been submitted
wherein the implication of one of the accused Bhagwan Singh
has been found to be false as such, he has not been charge
sheeted.
6. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the general role of all the accused wherein three
persons suffered injuries out of them Satyaveer, whose injury is
grievous in nature, has not been reported on the date of
injuries. There is old enmity between the parties, the accused
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail
application is allowed.
9. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid
BAIL No. 32521 of 2026
3
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].
10. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process
for fair and speedy disposal.
September 14, 2026
Krishna*
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…