Allahabad High Court
SUNAINA VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that despite the seriousness of the alleged assault, the delay in filing the FIR, lack of specificity regarding the weapon, and the applicant’s clean record warranted granting bail.
Summary
The applicant Sunaina Vishwakarma sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 278 of 2026) alleging assault on the mother of an informant, resulting in a fracture of the temporal and parietal bones. The FIR, lodged on 2 August 2026, named six accused, but two were later exonerated; the applicant claims no prior criminal record and cooperation with the investigation. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the grievous nature of the injury and the specific role attributed to the applicant. The Court noted the delayed filing of the FIR, lack of detail about the weapon used, and the number of accused, concluding that these factors justified granting bail without addressing the merits. Accordingly, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and sureties, citing Supreme Court precedents on bail policy.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged assault causing grievous injury under the listed sections of the BNS.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of specific details about the weapon affect the bail decision.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offense and the presence of multiple accused preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109(1), 115(2), 131, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- assault
- grievous injury
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
- Uttar Pradesh
- BNS
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32923 of 2026
Sunaina Vishwakarma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anoop Kumar Dubey, Rahul Saroj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Sri Anoop Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicant hands up
supplementary affidavit enclosing the additional documents in support of
bail application, the same is taken on record. Sri Sudhakar Yadav, learned
counsel for informant hands up Vakalatnama of self and Sri Rajesh
Yadav, Advocate, the same is also take on record.
1A. Heard Sri Dubey, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri Yadav,
learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Sunaina Vishwakarma to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 278 of
2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190,
131 of BNS, P.S.- Sikrara, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant and informant are neighbours. The FIR is lodged on 02.08.2026
at 14:13 hours by the son of injured Malti Devi against six named persons
with the role that on 01.08.2026 at about 15:00 hours, the accused have
assaulted the mother of informant. It is alleged that the accused had stop
the injured to put soil on the main door to protect the house from rain
water. It is further contended that injured Malti Devi suffered one injury,
which came out to be the fracture of temporal and parietal bone. Further
submits that the role of catching hold is attributed on the accused
applicant. Two more persons namely Ritik Gupta and Ranjana Gupta,
who were named in the FIR and assigned the role of catching hold have
BAIL No. 32923 of 2026
2
been exonerated as the Investigating Officer did not find their complicity.
It is further contended that the accused applicant has no criminal history.
Investigation is continuing and applicant is co-operating in the
investigation. The whole family of accused applicant is put in jail. The
accused applicant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2026. He seeks
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. for State have
opposed the bail application and submit that grievous injury fatal to life
has been sustained by the Malti Devi. The specific role is attributed on the
accused applicant. Hence, the bail application 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 number and nature of injuries and the number of
accused persons, who have been named in the FIR without specifically
showing the weapon used and it is apparent that the FIR is delayed, 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 23, 2026
Sharad/-
Digitally signed by :-
SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…