Allahabad High Court

PRATYA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

Bail was granted to the accused with stringent conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Pratya Singh, who was charged under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for allegedly causing firearm injury to the son of an informant. The applicant argued that the FIR did not specifically assign him a role, that the firearm was never recovered, and that all prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, while the informant remained abroad. The State acknowledged the applicant's clean record but highlighted the hostile witnesses and the seriousness of the charge. Relying on Article 21 of the Constitution and precedents such as Manish Sisodia v. DE, the court noted the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the injury. Consequently, the court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties, imposing strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witness intimidation and directing the trial to be concluded expeditiously.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a non‑bailable offence where the accused’s role is not clearly established in the FIR and key witnesses have turned hostile.
Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the absence of a recovered firearm justify bail under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the conditions imposed by the court are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 180
Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1)

Subjects

bail
non‑bailable offence
hostile witnesses
Article 21
presumption of innocence
trial expeditiousness
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33082 of 2026

Pratya Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishabh Narain Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The
first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4115 of
2026 was rejected by this court vide order dated 04.02.2026.
2. Heard Shri Rishabh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,
learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.
3. This second bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-
applicant, Pratya Singh seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime
No.232 of 2025 under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) BNS, P.S.- Khampar,
District- Deoria, during pendency of trial.
4. Tersely, as per allegations contained in the F.I.R, two accused persons,
the applicant and another accused, namely, Kishan Kashyap have caused
firearm injury to the son of the informant Dilsher Ahmad.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the first information
report no specific or distinct role of causing firearm injury to the injured
has been assigned to the applicant. Role of the applicant was surfaced
during the course of investigation on the basis of statement of the injured
which has been recorded by the I.O. under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and no
firearm was recovered in this incident. There was business transaction
between the victim and father of the accused-applicant. He further
submits that all the three witnesses, who are examined before the trial
court have turned hostile. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that the informant has not yet been examined and is presently
residing outside the country. However, he assures the Court that the
BAIL No. 33082 of 2026
2

informant shall appear before the trial court and his statement shall be
recorded. The applicant has no criminal history and he is jail since
04.12.2025.
6. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute that the accused-applicant has no
criminal history. He, however, submits that although the injured witness
and the other prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case
before the Investigating Officer, they have subsequently turned hostile
during the course of trial and have not supported the prosecution case
before the trial court.
7. The accused-applicant is named in the FIR and, after investigation, a
charge-sheet was submitted against him, upon which cognizance was
taken and charges were subsequently framed. During the course of trial,
the statements of prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely Saleha
Khatun, Zahid Ansari and Tazbun Nisha, respectively, have been
recorded before the trial court. All three witnesses have turned hostile and
have not supported the prosecution case either in their examination-in-
chief or in their cross-examination. In particular, prosecution witness No.
2, who is stated to be the injured witness and to have sustained the firearm
injury, stated in his examination-in-chief that he had sustained the firearm
injury at the hands of two unknown boys. Thus, there appears to be a
contradiction regarding the allegation that the accused-applicant had
caused the firearm injury. It is further submitted that the accused-
applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 04.12.2025
and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, larger
mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering
paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate
of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union
of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant
involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing
personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
BAIL No. 33082 of 2026
3

seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in Court.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him.
(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him strictly in accordance with law.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the trial court.

9. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

10. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial, as per law
and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within one year
from the date of production of certified copy of this order by fixing short
dates without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal
impediment.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
October 1, 2026
Ankit.

Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…