Allahabad High Court
SHYAM @ ATENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that the accused is entitled to bail given the minor injuries and absence of a criminal record.
Summary
The accused Shyam @ Atendra applied for bail in a case under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 and 131 of the BNS, alleging false implication in a FIR dated 27‑07‑2026. The FIR alleged an assault involving his brother and father, resulting in minor injuries without any bony fracture. The applicant has no prior criminal record and has been in custody since 31‑07‑2026. The State opposed bail, but the court considered the nature and extent of injuries and the applicant’s role. Finding the injuries minor and the applicant’s lack of history, the court granted bail without addressing the merits of the case, ordering a personal bond and two sureties in line with Supreme Court precedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite the charges under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 and 131 of the BNS.
- Whether the nature and severity of injuries justify denial of bail.
- Whether the alleged false implication and lack of prior criminal record warrant grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109, 115(2), 131, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- minor injuries
- personal bond
- sureties
- Supreme Court precedent
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33278 of 2026
Shyam @ Atendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saroj Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for accused applicant
and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Shyam @ Atendra to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 282 of
2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109, 131 of BNS, P.S.- Koraon,
District- Prayagraj, 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 27.07.2026
lodged by Rakesh Kumar Singh for the incident occurred in the morning
of 26.07.2026. It is alleged in the FIR against three persons including the
accused applicant that his brother Pramod has been assaulted by the co-
accused Lacchiman, the father of applicant while he has stopped him to
cut the tree. Later on, the mother of informant came to rescue his brother
wherein the mother of accused applicant also came and assaulted his
mother. It is further contended that two injuries were suffered by Indrani
and four injuries suffered by Pramod. Both have suffered no bony injury.
The accused applicant has no criminal history. Charge sheet is submitted.
The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2026. 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. 33278 of 2026
2
6. Considering the number and nature of injuries and the role attributed on
the accused applicant, 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…